LSAT 107 – Section 3 – Question 20

LSAT 107 - Section 3 - Question 20

October 1999

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:30

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
PT107 S3 Q20
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Link Assumption +LinkA
Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC
A
4%
161
B
1%
155
C
2%
153
D
14%
163
E
79%
167
141
152
162
 +Medium 148.579 +SubsectionMedium

Pieces of music consist of sounds and silences presented to the listener in a temporal order. A painting, in contrast, is not presented one part at a time to the viewer; there is thus no particular path that the viewer’s eye must follow in order to “read” the painting. Therefore, an essential distinction between the experiences of hearing music and of viewing paintings is that hearing music has a temporal dimension but viewing a painting has none.

A
the argument does not allow for the possibility of being immersed in experiencing a painting without being conscious of the passage of time
The argument doesn’t address whether viewers can lose track of time while looking at a painting.
B
the argument is based on a very general definition of music that does not incorporate any distinctions among particular styles
Distinctions between music styles are irrelevant to the argument. The argument just says that music doesn’t have a temporal dimension.
C
the argument fails to bring out the aspects of music and painting that are common to both as forms of artistic expression
The argument isn’t about the similarities between music and painting. It only focuses on a possible difference.
D
relying on the metaphor of “reading” to characterize how a painting is viewed presupposes the correctness of the conclusion to be drawn on the basis of that characterization
The argument doesn’t presuppose anything. It uses the metaphor of “reading” to describe how a painting is viewed, but it doesn’t cite that metaphor for why music and paintings are different. It cites the lack of a particular path for viewers to follow when looking at a painting.
E
the absence of a particular path that the eye must follow does not entail that the eye follows no path
This is a possibility the argument ignores. Even if viewers’ eyes don’t follow a particular path when looking at a painting, their eyes may still follow some path, allowing the possibility that paintings have a temporal element.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 107 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply