Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT1 S3 Q25 Explanation

Shanna: Owners of any work of art

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsAgree/Disagree

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Shanna: Owners of any work of art, simply by virtue of ownership, ethically have the right to destroy that artwork if they find it morally or for it becomes inconvenient.

Jorge: Ownership of unique artworks, unlike ownership of other kinds of objects, carries the moral right to possess but not to destroy. A unique work of art with aesthetic or historical value belongs to posterity the personal wishes of its legal owner.

What this question is testing

Agree/Disagree

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
25.

On the basis of their statements, Shanna and Jorge are committed to disagreeing about the truth of which one

Answer choices

  1. Correct51% picked this

    Anyone who owns a portrait presenting his or her father in an unflattering light would for that reason alone be

    Why this is right

    Answer A is correct.

    Skill tested: Agree/Disagree · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

  2. Trap5% picked this

    People who own aesthetically valuable works of art have no moral obligation to make them

  3. Trap3% picked this

    Valuable paintings by well-known artists are seldom intentionally damaged or destroyed

  4. Trap8% picked this

    If a piece of sculpture is not unique, its owner has no ethical obligation to preserve it if

  5. Trap33% picked this

    It is legally permissible for a unique and historically valuable mural to be destroyed by its owner if he

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free