Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S4 · Q20 Art Historian: Robbins cannot pass

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

Art Historian: Robbins cannot pass judgment on Stuart’s art.

Conclusion

Robbins cannot pass judgment on Stuart's art.

Evidence

Robbins does not understand Stuart's art well enough to praise it.

Evaluate

When an author says, "While X is true, Y is true", that 2nd idea is the one that matters. The first one is a concession.

So we have a really skimpy argument. R doesn't understand S's art well enough to praise it. Therefore, R cannot pass judgment on S's art.

Goal

We can predict the "If Prem, then Conc" missing link assumption:

Don't understand X → can't pass judgment well enough to praise it on X

We can also get our ears ready for the contrapositive version of that same thing:

Can pass judgment → do understand X well on X enough to praise it

20.

The art historian's argument depends on the assumption that

  1. Correct

    In order to pass judgment

    Why this is right

    This answer surprises me because it actually uses the Concession (R understands the art of S too well to dismiss it), but it matches the Evidence to Conclusion move. As written, this rule is saying Passing judgment ---requires--> Dismiss or Praise The contrapositive form would better match the argument, since the Conclusion of the argument should match the Right side of the conditional, and the conclusion was "can't pass judgment". Unable to Dismiss and → Can't Pass Judgment Unable to Praise The evidence established that Robbins can't dismiss S's art (because she understands it too well) and established that Robbins can't praise S's art (because she doesn't understand it well enough). And the conclusion is saying that Robbins can't pass judgment on S's art. If Necessary Assumption offers us a conditional answer, and we see that it matches a move the author made, we can pick it.

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

    66% picked this

  2. If art can be understood

    Relative vs. Absolute

    Relative vs. Absolute: well (enough) Unrelated to Goal: pass judgment The argument only discussed understanding something "well enough", not "well". We want to always be wary of shifts between Relative language and Absolute language. I can be tall enough to ride a rollercoaster, but not tall. Also, the conclusion is about whether or not Robbins can pass judgment on S's art, but we've never defined a rule for when someone can / can't pass judgment on S's art. On Assumption questions, if there's New Language in the Conclusion, then almost 100% of the time the correct answer will have that New Language in it. So since this answer doesn't have "can / can't pass judgment", it's instantly unattractive.

    7% picked this

  3. In order to understand Stuart’s

    Bad Conclusion Match

    When we say in order to X, you must Y we're saying X requires Y which looks like X → Y Understanding S's art requires being able to pass judgment. Understanding → Pass Judgment The move the author made in this argument from Premise to Conclusion wasn't "If you can understand it, you can pass judgment on it". The move she made was, "If you can't praise it (or dismiss it), then you can't pass judgment on it". We want our Conclusion to be on the Right side of any conditional relationship we're dealing with. Our conclusion is "cannot pass judgment". The right side of this conditional is, "able to pass judgment". The version of this answer we want to hear is In order to pass judgments on Stuart's art, you need to understand it well enough to praise it.

    10% picked this

  4. Stuart’s art can be neither

    Trap

    Too Strong Unrelated to Goal: pass judgment The author wasn't saying that it's impossible to praise or dismiss Stuart's art. She was only saying that Robbins couldn't do so. Also, this doesn't have the conclusion's New Idea, "pass judgment".

    4% picked this

  5. If Robbins understands art well,

    Trap

    Too Strong Unrelated to Goal: pass judgment The author was never guaranteeing that in all cases of Robbins understanding art well, she ends up praising it. Also, this doesn't have the conclusion's New Idea, "pass judgment".

    13% 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