Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S1 · Q10 Art historian: Great works of

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: Great works of art have often elicited outrage when first presented; in Europe, Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring prompted a riot, and Manet’s Déjeuner sur l’herbe elicited outrage and derision.

Conclusion (so)

We should not hesitate to use public funds to support works of art that many people find shocking.

Evidence (since)

Art is often shocking.

Great works of art have often elicited outrage when first presented.

Evaluate

The New Concept in the Conclusion is "using public funds to support" something.

We basically know that art, including great art, is often shocking. And the author concludes from that that we should use public funds to support works of art.

How might we make a counterargument that we should not use public funds to support works of art that many people find shocking?

We might say,

Goal

We can look for a Linking idea like, .

Or we can look for a Defending idea, ruling out a possible objection.

The correct answer, if negated, should weaken, meaning it should help us argue that we shouldn't use public funds to support art that many find shocking.

10.

Which one of the following is an assumption that the art historian's argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?

  1. Most art is shocking.

    Too Strong: most

    The author states that art is often shocking, but that doesn't mean most art is shocking. Baseball pitchers are often left-handed, but that doesn't mean more than 50% of pitchers are left-handed.

    7% picked this

  2. Stravinsky and Manet received public

    Out of Scope: received public funding

    The author is insinuating that Stravinksy's and Manet's great art was worthy of public funding, but she isn't committed to the idea that they actually received public funding. If we negated this answer and said, "S and M did not receive public funding for their art", it wouldn't hurt the argument. The author is merely saying, "We love this art from S and M, even though it was shocking to many when it came out. Thus, we should be fine using public funds to support art that many find shocking (the implication is that our public funding might help support the next Stravinsky or Manet).

    19% picked this

  3. Art used to be more

    Unsupported Comparison

    Unsupported Comparison: more shocking Relative vs. Absolute It's always a big red flag when we notice a shift between Absolute language (art is often "shocking") and Relative (yesterday's art was "more shocking" than today's). The author didn't need to assume that art is getting less shocking over time. She seems to be saying, timelessly, that art is often shocking, and so we shouldn't be shy about using public funds to support art that many find shocking.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    Public funds should support art.

    Why this is right

    This answer does address the New Concept in the Conclusion, "should use public funds to support". Was the author thinking that we should use public funds to support art? Yeah, sure, I mean, the author is literally concluding that we should use public funds to support works of art that many people find shocking. So implicit in that idea is that we should use public funds to support (at least some kinds of) art. If we negate this answer, does it weaken? Yes, it definitely hurts the author's argument for us to say, "Hey, author -- we should not use public funds to support art, at all!" If you're thinking to yourself, "Isn't this 'assumption' really just a subset of the conclusion, and not actually related to the premise / reasoning?" Yes! This is a very, very weird correct answer. It's hard to think of any other correct answers on Necessary Assumption that fee like this. Probably, the test writers wanted us to be reacting to the author's argument, which was that we shouldn't be shy about using public funds to support shocking art, with the potential objection of, "Wait a sec -- who said we should be supporting any art with public funds?"

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

    70% picked this

  5. Anything that shocks is art.

    Too Strong: all shocking things

    The author definitely doesn't have to believe the crazy sounding claim that "every single thing that shocks is art". A brutal murder is art? A war crime is art? An open electrical wire is art? The author just said that art is often shocking, which is nowhere near saying "everything that shocks is art".

    3% 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