LSAT 141 – Section 2 – Question 18

LSAT 141 - Section 2 - Question 18

September 2014

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:26

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
PT141 S2 Q18
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC
A
6%
157
B
8%
158
C
18%
160
D
4%
157
E
65%
165
145
156
166
 +Harder 146.882 +SubsectionMedium

Critic: An art historian argues that because fifteenth-century European paintings were generally more planimetric (that is, two-dimensional with no attempt at suggesting depth) than were sixteenth-century paintings, fifteenth-century painters had a greater mastery of painting than did sixteenth-century painters. However, this conclusion is wrong. Fifteenth-century European painters did not have a greater mastery of painting, for the degree to which a painting is planimetric is irrelevant to the painter’s mastery.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The critic argues that the art historian’s conclusion is wrong. She supports this by saying that fifteenth-century European painters did not have a greater mastery of painting, because whether a painting is planimetric is irrelevant to the painter’s mastery.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing a lack of support with a false conclusion. In this flaw, the author assumes that a conclusion is false simply because the argument in support of that conclusion is weak.

Here, the critic concludes that the art historian is wrong, simply because she has weakened the art historian’s support. But it’s possible that fifteenth-century European painters did have a greater mastery of paining, even though a painting being planimetric doesn’t reflect the painter’s mastery.

A
rejects a position merely because the proponent of the position has other objectionable views
The critic never mentions any “other objectionable views.” She just objects to the view that fifteenth-century painters had a greater mastery of painting. Instead of (A), the critic rejects a position merely because she has weakened the historian’s support for that position.
B
illicitly relies on two different meanings of the term “mastery”
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the author uses the same term in different ways without acknowledging the shift in meaning. The critic doesn’t make this mistake. She uses the word “mastery” consistently throughout her argument.
C
takes a necessary condition for an argument’s being inadequate to be a sufficient condition for an argument’s being inadequate
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The critic doesn't make this mistake. She doesn’t rely on conditional logic. Instead, she rejects the historian’s conclusion just because she weakened the historian’s support.
D
bases its conclusion on two claims that contradict each other
The critic contradicts the historian’s claim, but she doesn’t have an internal contradiction within her own argument. That is, her conclusion isn’t based on two premises that contradict each other.
E
rejects a position on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made for it
The critic rejects the historian’s conclusion on the grounds that her support is weak. But it’s possible that fifteenth-century European painters did have a greater mastery of paining, even though a painting being planimetric doesn’t reflect the painter’s mastery.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 141 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply