PrepTest 102

[lcid:3506] Prep Test 102 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

A museum director, in Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

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

Errors in Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

Museum director - To raise funds, she sold some paintings she considered inferior. Critics: You sold first-rate pieces and violated your duty to future generations! Follow-up - The paintings sold in a stagnant art market for 2-3x what the museum sold them for Conclusion - The Critics were right

Answer Anticipation

We should be reading the stimulus of all Errors in Reasoning questions with an eye toward identifying elements that are associated with specific flaws. However, this stimulus has so many viewpoints - the museum director, the critics, the author - that we should start by narrowing down the argument to what the Author says, since that’s the argument we’re looking for a flaw in. So let’s start with her conclusion - the Critics’ evaluation was correct. What did the Critics argue? That the Director sold first-rate pieces and violated her duty as a trustee of art for future generations. That’s a two-part conclusion, so we should look at the premises and see how they connect with both pieces. What are the author’s premises? Here, there’s really only one premise - that the art sold by the director went on to be sold in a stagnant art market for 2-3x what she sold them for. How is that connected to the two parts of the conclusion? Well, it doesn’t really speak to the part about being a trustee, so the author doesn’t seem to really be talking about that. Instead, the sale price seems to speak to the quality of the works - that they’re “first-rate pieces.” Does an increase in sale price guarantee that certain pieces are first-rate? Not necessarily - there could be other reasons that they increased in price. The artist could have died, or they could have been discovered to be historically important (instead of quality art). Any answer that points out that there are other potential reasons for the increase in price - other than a recognition of their quality - will highlight a flaw in this argument.

Answer choices

  1. A
    It concludes that a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    There’s no discussion of how many people hold each view here, so there’s no comparison of more people holding one view over the other.
  2. B
    It rejects the judgment Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    There are dueling experts here (the museum director and the critics), and the author sides with one of them.
  3. C
    It rejects a proven Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The author’s argument deals only with whether the art in question was first-rate, not whether it should have been sold to finance new acquisitions. The crux of the debate isn’t over accomplishing that goal!
  4. D
    It bases a firm Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    No one talks about the future. The Critics mention a duty to future generations, but that duty exists in the present!
  5. E
    It bases its conclusion Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    The argument relies on the sale price to draw a conclusion about the quality of the art. While the sale price could reflect the art’s quality, it could also reflect other causes - as we noted, the death of the artist or the discovery of historical significance of the paintings sold.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion