Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S3 · Q24 Surviving seventeenth-century Dutch

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

Surviving seventeenth-century Dutch landscapes attributed to major artists now equal in number those attributed to minor ones.

Conclusion

Many attributions of 17th century Dutch landscape to major artists are definitely wrong.

Evidence

Of the surviving 17th century Dutch landscapes, there's an equal number attributed to major artists as to minor ones.

But only a handful of major artists painted in this genre, whereas many prolific minor artists made a living cranking these Dutch landscapes out.

Evaluate

The author is thinking purely in terms of numbers.

She thinks that during the 17th century, major artists would have produced way fewer Dutch landscapes than minor artists would have (since minor artists were cranking these out prolifically, trying to satisfy the insatiable demands of the market).

So let's say for example that major artists created 100 of these paintings, whereas minor artists created 1000 of them.

The author is thinking,

We could call this a Curious Comparison -- how could it be that major artists made less than half of the Dutch landscapes in the 17th century but are attributed to half of the surviving ones?

The author's way of explaining this is, .

We, of course, are tasked with considering Alternate Explanations ....

After all, the ones painted by major artists would be more valuable, presumably, so people would have more incentive to hang onto them. And perhaps they were owned by wealthier people, whose belongings and estates have been better preserved and attended to.

The Dutch landscapes painted by minor artists to satisfy rabid public demand might have been cheap to purchase, painted on cheaper (more degrading) materials, and thus many more of them would have ended up in the garbage eventually.

Goal

Since this is Strengthen, we need to either Rule Out an alternate explanation (Dutch landscapes by major artists were no more likely to be carefully preserved over the centuries than were landscapes by minor artists)

or

Increase the plausibility of the author's explanation (there is reason to believe that a bunch of these 17th century Dutch landscape paintings were erroneously attributed to a major painter)

24.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

  1. Technically gifted seventeenth-century Dutch landscape

    Weakens, if anything

    This hurts the plausibility of the author's hypothesis. If the works of the major artists (I'm fudging an assumption that "major = technically gifted") had recognizable styles, then it is less likely that you would have incorrect attributions of who painted a given landscape.

    4% picked this

  2. In the workshops of major

    No Impact

    Learning about what assistants did within a major artist's workshop is totally irrelevant. This is like learning that their assistants normally put one lump, not two, of sugar into their tea.

    2% picked this

  3. In the eighteenth century, landscapes

    Weakens

    This provides an Alternate Explanation like what we were thinking of --- maybe the surviving landscapes are 1/2 major artist because a high volume of the ones created by minor artists didn't survive (they were thrown away or damaged).

    6% picked this

  4. Correct

    Seventeenth-century art dealers paid minor

    Why this is right

    This adds plausibility to the Author's Explanation. We're more likely to believe that many of these Dutch landscapes have been incorrectly attributed to a major artist, if we know that there was a strong financial incentive for art dealers to incorrectly attribute an unsigned painting by a minor artist to a major artist.

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

    80% picked this

  5. More seventeenth-century Dutch landscapes were

    Nothing New

    This seems like a very hollow truth. It is literally just saying, "At least one Dutch landscape from a major artist didn't survive, and at least one Dutch landscape from a minor artist didn't survive". Well, of course. When you woke up this morning, were you thinking that 100% of the Dutch landscapes painted in the 17th century have survived? Of course not. So, this is just telling us what we already know -- not all paintings survive, three centuries later.

    7% 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