Pre-World War I Painters

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsOrganizationHumanities

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

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.

Passage

For some years before the outbreak of World War I, a number of painters in different European countries developed works of art that some have described as prophetic: paintings that by challenging viewers’ habitual ways of perceiving the world of the present are thus said to anticipate a future world that would important break with traditions of representational art that stretched back to the Renaissance.

So fundamental is this break with tradition that it is not surprising to discover that these artists—among them Picasso and Braque in France, Kandinsky in Germany, and Malevich in Russia—are often credited with having anticipated not just subsequent developments in the arts, but also the political and social disruptions and upheavals of and not their break with traditional artistic techniques, that constitutes their chief interest and value.

No one will deny that an artist may, just as much as a writer or a politician, speculate about the future and then try to express a vision of that future through making use of a particular style or choice of imagery; speculation about the possibility of war in Europe was certainly only to the eye. The reformation of society was of no interest to them as artists.

It is also important to remember that not all decisive changes in art are quickly followed by dramatic events in the world outside art. The case of Delacroix, the nineteenth-century French painter, is revealing. His stylistic innovations startled his contemporaries—and still retain that power over modern viewers—but most art historians have decided 1830, as opposed to other artists who supposedly told of changes still to come.

What this question is testing

Organization

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

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

The question

Which one of the following most accurately describes the contents of

Answer choices

Correct69% picked this
The author describes an artistic phenomenon; introduces one interpretation of this phenomenon; proposes an alternative interpretation and then supports this alternative
Why this is right
The final ingredient here is "supporting an alternative interpretation by criticizing the original interpretation". That seems to describe the 3rd paragraph, where the author is supporting her alternative interpretation (this art didn't predict the world to come; it was merely full of artistic innovations). That 3rd paragraph is "undermining the original interpretation", but is there any explicit criticism? Not quite. But the final sentence of the passage does sound like it's criticizing the original: ... as opposed to "other artists who supposedly told of changes to come" So it looks like we can match everything up here. The author describes an artistic phenomenon The first paragraph introduces us to the pre-WWI painters we're talking about. introduces one interpretation of the phenomenon In the 2nd paragraph, we learn that these artists are "often credited" with predicting political and social disruptions before/during/after the war. "One art critic goes so far as to claim" that what makes these works most important is how they predicted the future. proposes an alternative explanation The 3rd paragraph is where the author is saying, "we should mainly congratulate the forward-looking art innovations. These guys weren't trying to predict the future. Just ask them." supports the alternative by criticizing the original Again, this is the weakest part of this answer, but the 4th paragraph is trying to support the author's view, and it contains some phrases that remind us that the author is Challenging the Position of those critics in the 2nd. - "It is also important to remember X" - "as opposed to [this idea these critics have about] other artists [the pre-WWI artists] who supposedly told of changes to come".
Skill tested: Organization · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
69%
Bad 2nd/3rd/4th Ingredient6% picked this
The author describes an artistic phenomenon; identifies the causes of that phenomenon; illustrates some of the consequences of the phenomenon and then speculates
There's no way to say the last paragraph (or final bits of the passage) were "speculating about the significance of consequences". So if we're using the shortcut, we'd probably not be enticed by this on a first pass. We can agree to the 1st ingredient, because our 1st paragraph describes the artistic phenomenon of these pre-WWI painters. Does the passage then talk about the causes of these pre-WWI painters? No. It shifts into the views of critics who think these painters were literally predicting the future. The passage never really talks about the consequences of the pre-WWI painters' artworks either.
6%
Bad 3rd Ingredient: common criticisms12% picked this
The author describes an artistic phenomenon; articulates the traditional interpretation of this phenomenon; identifies two common criticisms of this view and then dismisses each
This has some "last ingredient" appeal because the passage ends with an appeal to an example (the Delacroix one). The first two ingredients seem fine. The 1st paragraph describes an artistic phenomenon, and the 2nd paragraph describes a "traditional" interpretation (technically, we can't even justify that word 'traditional'). But we definitely don't have any "two common criticisms" in the 3rd paragraph. The author is presenting her own criticisms. She offers them; she definitely doesn't dismiss them.
12%
Bad 2nd / 3rd / 4th ingredient10% picked this
The author describes an artistic phenomenon; presents two competing interpretations of the phenomenon; dismisses both interpretations by appeal to an example and
The last two ingredients here are scrambled. The author introduces her alternative interpretation and then appeals to an example (Delacroix). The author doesn't present and dismiss two competing interpretations. She presents multiple compatible interpretations in the 2nd paragraph (they all essentially agree that "these artworks were predicting the future"). Then the author dismisses that interpretation and introduces an alternate one.
10%
Bad 2nd / 3rd / 4th Ingredient3% picked this
The author describes an artistic phenomenon; identifies the causes of the phenomenon; presents an argument for the importance of the phenomenon and then advocates
If we're doing the "last ingredient shortcut", we'd definitely axe this one, since the last paragraph is miles away from "advocating an attempt to recreate a phenomenon". If we read from the start, we'd also see that "causes of phenomenon" and "argument for importance" are also missing.
3%

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