Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S2 · Q25 The argument Hector makes in responding

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

Start practicing free

Monica: The sculpture commissioned for our town plaza has been scorned by the public ever since it went up.

Conclusion (Thus)

If [this sculpture has been scorned by the public ever since it went up], the sculpture ought to be removed.

Evidence

A work of art for a public space ought to benefit the public and popular opinion is the only way to determine what the public feels is to its benefit.

Evaluate

When a conclusion is in conditional form, we accept the "if" condition.

So we could be thinking,

Given that ... the public has scorned the sculpture ever since it went up, popular opinion is the only way to determine whether the public benefits, and a commissioned art such as this ought to benefit the public.

How could we still argue that ... The sculpture should not be removed?

Playing by Hector's rules, we need to argue that the sculpture is benefiting the public. We could say that, .

Maybe some art benefits the public by pointing out something unpleasant about the public. The public might scorn the art, because it's rebuking them, but still benefit from having seen the art because the art lodges this societal criticism in their subconscious.

Or we argue that scorn is just a short term reaction; in the long term the public would grow to appreciate the benefit the sculpture provides.

Goal

Look for an answer providing the linking idea, , or look for a defending answer saying, or .

25.

The argument Hector makes in responding to Monica depends on the assumption that

  1. no matter what the public’s

    Too Strong: No Matter What

    This is an incredibly strong, "The people are always right" idea. Hector has only committed to the idea that "the people should be our gauge of benefit when it comes to works of art commissioned for public spaces".

    24% picked this

  2. Monica’s assessment of the public’s

    Never Correct

    Any time there is a conditional conclusion, the author is not making any judgments on whether or not the trigger is true. We can never strengthen a conditional conclusion by making the trigger seem more likely to be true nor weaken it by making the trigger seem less likely to be true. The author makes no assumptions about the trigger's truth or falsity. We essentially add these conditions to our set of "givens", because the author is only claiming that "in a hypothetical world where this condition is true, judgment X would follow". Were I to claim, "If Obama served a third term, he would pass universal health care", you can't attack that claim by saying Obama won't / can't serve a third term. If we negated this answer choice and said that "Monica's account is not accurate", it has no effect on the author's conclusion.

    10% picked this

  3. if the sculpture had artistic

    Out of Scope: Artistic Merit

    Nothing in Hector's argument has anything to do with artistic merit. He's only talking about whether or not the sculpture should be removed, whether or not the it benefits the public, and how we can determine what the public feels is to its benefit.

    2% picked this

  4. works of art commissioned for

    Out of Scope: Artistic Merit

    Nothing in Hector's argument has anything to do with artistic merit. He's only talking about whether or not the sculpture should be removed, whether or not the it benefits the public, and how we can determine what the public feels is to its benefit.

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    if the public feels that

    Why this is right

    Did the author make a mental move from thinking: the public feels it → the public doesn't benefit doesn't benefit ? Sure. The author is trying to use this principle: if commissioned then that public car doesn't → art should benefit public be removed Since the author is arguing that we should remove this sculpture, he is thinking, "this sculpture does not benefit the public". How did he arrive at the idea that the sculpture doesn't benefit the public? He is combining Monica's testimony that the sculpture has received scorn with the principle that "the only way to determine what the public feels is to its benefit is to check popular opinion". He thinks that according to Monica's testimony, the public does not feel like the sculpture is to its benefit. And then he takes that to mean that the sculpture factually is not to the public's benefit. So, yes, the author made this move. If we negate this answer, it gives us this weakening objection, "Hey, author --- even though the public feels that it doesn't benefit from the sculpture, it's possible that they do in fact benefit from it." This is similar to the objection we conjured initially about, "Maybe the sculpture makes them uncomfortable but teaches them some valuable truth".

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

    61% 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