PrepTest 142

Incorrect. This answer doesn't speak specifically to the stylistic features of Caravaggio's paintings.

Incorrect. Realism doesn't factor into Mather's definition, so it's out of scope of the conclusion.

Incorrect. Similar to (B), realism doesn't feature in Mather's definition, so it's out of scope here.

Incorrect. Caravaggio's paintings were realistic, but this answer doesn't establish all realistic paintings don't fit Mather's definition of Baroque. Instead, it establishes that they usually don't—Caravaggio's paintings could be an example of the minority that do, fitting Mather's definition. This answer is too weak to establish the conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Commentators Ð Caravaggio was early Baroque
Mather's definition Ð Opulent, heroic sweep, extravagant
Conclusion Ð The Commentators are wrong, or Mather's definition is wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
This is an interesting conclusion. The argument brings up multiple viewpoints—the Commentators, Mather—while not necessarily agreeing with any of them. Instead, the conclusion states that one must reject either the Commentators' conclusion, or Mather's definition.

In other words, these two viewpoints contradict each other, so they can't both be true.

Another way of looking at this is that Caravaggio's paintings must not conform to Mather's definition of Baroque—opulent, heroic, extravagant. If Caravaggio's paintings don't meet that definition, either Mather's definition is wrong or Caravaggio's paintings aren't Baroque (so don't fix them). The correct answer, then, should establish that Caravaggio's paintings don't have these features (or at least one of them, since Mather's definition is that all of them must be displayed).

Answer Explanation:
If Caravaggio's paintings don't feature these things, then they don't fit Mather's definition of Baroque. Either Mather is wrong, then, or the Commentators who call Caravaggio's painting Baroque are wrong, justifying the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument states that two things can't both be right, it establishes them as contradictory or mutually exclusive. The idea of contradiction is an important one on the LSAT which establishes two things that can't both be true at the same time—and it features most prominently in Cannot Be True questions. Be sure to know the difference between two things that contradict each other and two things that don't support each other—the latter could still both be true!