Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT106 S2 Q9 Explanation

The assertion that a later artist

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

TopicsRole

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

Curator: The decision to restore the cloak of the central figure in Veronese’s painting from its present red to the green found underneath is fully justified. Reliable x-ray and chemical tests show that the red pigment was applied after the painting had been completed, and that the red paint was not mixed artist other than Veronese tampered with Veronese’s painting after its completion.

Art critic: But in a copy of Veronese’s painting made shortly after Veronese died, the cloak is red. It is highly unlikely that a copyist would have so soon after Veronese’s death.

What this question is testing

Role

Argument Structure

The curator's argument is layered. Walk it forward:

1. Tests show the red was added after the painting was finished and wasn't mixed in Veronese's workshop.

2. Therefore, a later artist (not Veronese) tampered with it.

3. Therefore, restoring it back to the original green is justified.

Evaluate

Notice the tampering claim sits in the middle. It's supported by something below it (the tests) and it itself supports something above it (the justification for restoration). That makes it an intermediate or subsidiary conclusion — not the main point, but a stepping-stone to the main point.

Goal

Find: the tampering claim is a subsidiary conclusion that supports the main conclusion.

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

The question
9.

The assertion that a later artist tampered with Veronese’s painting serves which one of the following functions in

Answer choices

  1. Bad Description17% picked this

    It is the main point toward which the argument as a

    The main point of the argument is the conclusion in the first sentence — that the decision to restore the cloak is fully justified. The tampering claim is a step on the way there. So the argument as a whole is not directed toward the tampering claim; it's directed toward the restoration claim.

  2. Correct81% picked this

    It is a subsidiary conclusion that supports the argument’s

    Why this is right

    The tampering claim is supported by the test results and itself supports the main conclusion that the restoration is justified — the layered structure of a subsidiary (intermediate) conclusion. The argument runs: tests → an artist other than Veronese tampered with the painting → the restoration is justified. The middle step is a subsidiary conclusion supporting the main conclusion.

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

  3. Bad Description0% picked this

    It is a clarification of a key term of

    The tampering claim is not a definition or clarification of any term. It's a substantive assertion about what happened to the painting — supported by evidence and supporting a further conclusion. Definitions don't play that role in arguments.

  4. Bad Description1% picked this

    It is a particular instance of the general position to

    There is no general position in the argument that the tampering claim is a particular instance of. The argument doesn't say "later tampering with paintings happens" and then offer this case as an example. It just argues from the specific facts of this painting to a specific conclusion about it.

  5. Bad Description0% picked this

    It is a reiteration of the main point that is made for the

    The tampering claim is not a restatement of the main conclusion. The main conclusion is about whether the restoration is justified; the tampering claim is about who applied the red paint. Different propositions, doing different jobs in the argument.

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