Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S2 · Q9 The assertion that a later artist

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

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.

Main Conclusion

The decision to restore the cloak's green is fully justified.

Intermediate Conclusion (hence)

It appears likely that an artist other than Veronese tampered with the painting after its completion.

Premises

X-ray and chemical tests show the red was applied after the painting was completed, and the red paint wasn't mixed in Veronese's workshop.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Main Conclusion and Role, we prep ourselves for the fact that the conclusion is usually Pivot/Rebuttal (60% of them) or First Sentence (25%).

The first sentence is an opinion from the author, "fully justified". If the rest of the paragraph seems to be supporting why we're justified in restoring the cloak from red to green, then this is our main conclusion.

Indeed, the rest of the paragraph defends why it's justified. The final claim is an Intermediate conclusion based on the 2nd sentence.

Goal

They're asking us about the final claim, so let's look for something like "intermediate conclusion". It's supported by the 2nd sentence and it provides support for the 1st sentence.

9.

The assertion that a later artist tampered with Veronese's painting serves which one of the following functions in the curator's argument?

  1. It is the main point

    Bad Description

    The first sentence is the main point, that the decision to restore the cloak is fully justified. The tampering claim is a reason why we're justified in restoring the cloak to green.

    18% picked this

  2. Correct

    It is a subsidiary conclusion

    Why this is right

    The tampering claim is supported by the test results and itself supports the main conclusion that the restoration is justified.

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

    80% picked this

  3. It is a clarification of

    Bad Description

    Any claim prefaced by "Hence" is going to be a conclusion supported by the previous idea. It's not going to just be a clarification.

    0% picked this

  4. It is a particular instance

    Bad Description

    The position being defended is that "we're justified in restoring the cloak from red to green". That's hella specific, not general. If the general position were something like, "We are justified in restoring works of art that have been tampered with", then "we're justified in restoring the cloak in Veronese's painting" could be a particular instance of that general claim.

    1% picked this

  5. It is a reiteration of

    Bad Description

    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.

    0% 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