LSAT 112 – Section 1 – Question 26

LSAT 112 - Section 1 - Question 26

December 2001

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:20

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT112 S1 Q26
+LR
Sufficient assumption +SA
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
4%
156
B
21%
156
C
4%
153
D
22%
154
E
48%
165
155
161
167
 +Hardest 147.196 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we find several recurrent items: a satin jacket, a certain Turkish carpet, and wooden chairs with lion’s-head finials. These reappearing objects might seem to evince a dearth of props. Yet we know that many of the props Vermeer used were expensive. Thus, while we might speculate about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects, it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used.

Summary
The author concludes that the reason Vermeer used recurring items in his paintings is not because he lacked props. This is based on the fact that many of the recurring items in his paintings were expensive.

Missing Connection
All we know from the premise is that many recurring items in Vermeer’s paintings are expensive. But this doesn’t prove anything about the reason Vermeer used the recurring items as props. How can the author reach the conclusion that the reason is not because he lacked props? We want to get from the fact many props were expensive to the conclusion that the reason Vermeer used recurring items is not because he lacked props:
If he used many expensive props → lacking props is not the reason he used recurring props
OR
If lacking props IS the reason he used recurring props → he would NOT have used many expensive props

A
Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.
The fact he borrowed the props doesn’t tell us anything about whether he lacked props or didn’t lack props.
B
The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him.
The constant availability of the props that he used doesn’t tell us anything about whether he lacked props or didn’t lack props. Maybe he had only a few props, and those props were always available to him.
C
The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.
Whether the props were owned by his sister doesn’t tell us anything about whether he lacked props or whether this lack of props is the reason he used recurring items in his paintings.
D
The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him.
The fact some recurring items in his paintings had sentimental importance to him does not imply that the reason he used those recurring items had nothing to do with lacking props. It’s possible he did lack props and that this why he used the same items over and over.
E
If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them.
“Dearth” means lack. (E) connects the premise to the conclusion. If a lack of props was the reason for the recurring items, we wouldn’t see expensive props in the paintings. But since we do see expensive props in the paintings, (E) establishes that a lack of props was NOT the reason for the recurring items.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 112 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply