PrepTest 106

[lcid:3520] Prep Test 106 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

We ought to pay Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Strengthen with Sufficient Premise Questions / Sufficient & Necessary Questions

Stimulus Summary

Conclusion - We should pay attention only to intrinsic properties of art, not extrinsic properties
Premise - What is relevant is what a painting directly presents to experience, not what it symbolizes

Answer Anticipation

Ugh, these abstract/philosophical arguments are the worst! Luckily, we can use what we know about Sufficient Premise questions to wade our way through this one!
Let’s start with the argument itself. It opens with an “ought to” statement, which is almost always the main point. It moves from that to an extension of the opening line, so the conclusion here is split between two sentences. From there, it moves to an example, which must serve as a premise. The final sentence has “therefore” in it, which means that it’s a conclusion built off of the example.
So we have two conclusions, and looking at them, it makes a whole lot more sense for the last line to be an intermediate conclusion backing up the first two sentences than the other way around - it makes sense to say what is relevant tells us what we should pay attention to.
When an Sufficient Premise question features an intermediate conclusion, the gap can be between that conclusion and the main point, or the premise and that intermediate conclusion, but not both - then we’d need two connections to make the argument valid! And since the intermediate conclusion and main point here include different concepts, we should focus there.
Looking at them, we can see that the intermediate conclusion is about symbolism vs. direct experience, setting them up as opposites of each other. This is used to reach a conclusion about intrinsic vs. extrinsic properties - again, set up as opposites. Since the argument is jumping from the former set to the latter, we should look for an answer that connects them - either something that connects what the painting symbolizes to extrinsic properties (the two things the argument says to ignore), or what it directly presents to experience to intrinsic properties (the two things the argument says to focus on).

Answer choices

  1. A
    What an artwork symbolizes Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    This answer connects symbolism to extrinsic properties, tying the intermediate conclusion to the main point. This answer is therefore correct.
  2. B
    There are certain properties Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    While it might be necessary for the argument that we can determine which properties are symbolic, it doesn’t do anything to connect symbolism to extrinsic/intrinsic properties, so this answer is incorrect.
  3. C
    Only an artwork's intrinsic Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    This answer connects different parts of the conclusion, so it doesn’t justify that conclusion based on the premises.
  4. D
    It is possible in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    This answer doesn’t connect symbolism to extrinsic properties, so it’s out of scope.
  5. E
    An intrinsic property of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    This answer defines “intrinsic property” in a way that is unrelated to the rest of the argument, so it can be eliminated.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Help 4 replies

    Started by Batman

View all discussions Start a discussion