Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S3 · Q23 A museum director, in order to

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

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

A museum director, in order to finance expensive new acquisitions, discreetly sold some paintings by major artists.

Conclusion (clearly)

The prices settle the issue of whether the museum director deserved criticism for secretly selling some works by major artists.

Intermediate Conclusion (since)

The prices demonstrate that the critics were right to say that these were first rate pieces and that the director should be condemned for selling them.

Evidence

Only a few months after the director secretly sold these paintings, they sold in an otherwise stagnant art market at 2-3 times the price the director sold them for.

Evaluate

The essence of this argument boils down to this connection:

pieces sold for 2-3 times → pieces were what director got for them first-rate

I don't really know how the bigger re-sale price indicates that the pieces were first-rate. After all, I might sell you a really crappy bike I have for $5. If a couple months later you sell that same bike to someone else for $10 or $15 (2-3 times as much), does that prove it's a first-rate bike?

No, it just proves that the original price you paid me was probably less than I could have gotten for it.

The author is interpreting a Curious Fact (why did the paintings re-sell at 2-3 times the value of what the director sold them for?) with one possible interpretation (these were first-rate pieces by major artists, thus highly coveted, thus commanding a high sales price even in a stagnant art market).

We would push back with alternative explanations, such as the one I just mentioned: - maybe they are inferior works, but the director just sold them for 1/2 to 1/3 of what she could have sold them for

- maybe they are inferior works, but the person buying them does not have a good grasp on what the right value of the work is, so they overpaid 2-3 times what they should have simply because they recognized the name of the major artist who painted it

Goal

Let's look for an answer that allows us to explain the higher re-sale price while still arguing the Anti-Conclusion, that these were not first-rate pieces and thus the museum director doesn't deserve condemnation.

23.

The reasoning in the argument is vulnerable to the criticism that the argument does which one of the following?

It concludes that a certain
Bad Evidence Match
When an answer choice is structured like, concludes that X on the grounds that Y we can ask whether X matches the conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Does the author conclude that a certain opinion is correct? Sure, the intermediate conclusion (or whatever we're calling that tangled mess of opinion in the final sentence) is saying that the critics' evaluation was correct. Does the evidence say "there are more people who think they were first-rate pieces than people who think they weren't"? No. The evidence has nothing to do with counting up opinion votes on both sides of the issue -- the evidence is purely about how much the paintings sold for (these prices settle the issue).
10% picked this
It rejects the judgment of
Opposite: rejects experts
The potential experts here would be the museum director and the art critics. The only plural experts would be the critics. Our author embraces the judgment of the critics, so it's not accurate to say he rejects the judgment of the experts.
2% picked this
It rejects a proven means
Bad Conclusion Match Never a Flaw
Does the author's conclusion reject a proven means of accomplishing an objective? No, so we can stop reading. Our conclusion is saying the critics were right to condemn the director's selling of these paintings, but were we ever told that "A proven means of raising money to finance new acquisitions is for a museum director to secretly sell off paintings from major artists that she considers inferior pieces"? Heavens no. Also, it's not actually a flaw to conclude "this plan / this action sucked" while not providing an alternative solution. The defense attorney can prove "my client didn't do it" without having to also solve the crime for the police and find the real killer.
4% picked this
It bases a firm conclusion
Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match
When an answer choice is structured like, bases a conclusion about X on Y we can ask whether X matches the conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Does the author firmly conclude something about a present state of affairs? Not really. He is presently concluding that the critics were correct when they condemned the director for having sold the paintings. Seems like the conclusion is about a state of affairs in the past. Does the evidence discuss somewhat speculative claims about a future state of affairs? Not at all. It just discusses how much these paintings sold for when they were re-sold (in the past).
9% picked this
Correct
It bases its conclusion on
Why this is right
Wow, what an unhelpful answer choice. This answer choice is basically a totally generic version of the famous Causal flaw. Causal flaws come in different forms (the most famous one being inferring a causal relationship from a mere correlation), but they share this commonality: - the author presents a Curious Fact - the author overconfidently concludes one possible explanation, even though other possible explanations exist That's all this is saying. The conclusion is based on the facts of the re-sale price being 2-3 times what the director received when she sold the paintings. The author presupposes that the cause of that elevated re-sale price is that these are first-rate pieces. However, the higher re-sale prices could have resulted from other causes, such as - they are inferior pieces, but the director sold them for less than she could have - they are inferior pieces, but someone stupidly overpaid for them when they were re-sold If you want to see another example of a Curious Fact argument on Flaw, where they don't really name the alternative cause, check this one out.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
75% picked this

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