Logical Reasoning

PT111 · S4 · Q25 Zachary: The term “fresco” refers

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

Zachary: The term "fresco" refers to paint that has been applied to wet plaster.

Zach's Conclusion (therefore)

In order to restore Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel paintings to the appearance that Michelangelo intended them to have, everything except the original fresco work should be stripped away.

Zach's Evidence

Additions known to have been made by later painters have obscured the original fresco.

Stephen's Response

But it was super common back then for painters of a given fresco to add painted details to their own frescoes after the frescoes had dried.

Evaluate

Stephen is suggesting that Zach's plan might backfire. Zach is hoping to strip away all the layers other than the original fresco, so that it looks the way Michaelangelo intended.

But Stephen is saying,

Goal

In terms of the popular categories of Method answers (analogy, counter/example, bad implications of logic, ruling out alternatives, suggesting alternate explanation, raising overlooked consideration, calling out a dubious assumption), we would probably say that this one is Raising an Overlooked Consideration --

Or we could say it's implicitly revealing an assumption of Zach, that .

Look for anything we can match to the text.

25.

Stephen's response to Zachary proceeds by

Correct
calling into question an assumption
Why this is right
This is pretty mean, since Stephen definitely doesn't explicitly call out any potential assumption. He basically raises an important consideration (it was common for the painter of the fresco to add another layer, before it had the final appearance they intended it to have), that allows us to see a potential objection (what if Michaelangelo did that on the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel?! Then following this advice would mean removing some of Michaelangelo's work!). And whenever we hear an objection, we can rephrase it as an assumption -- the author is assuming that objection is not the case. So we would understand this answer to be saying that Stephen is calling into question the assumption Zach's conclusion depends on, which is that "Michaelangelo intended for the Sistine Chapel to look like what it looked like when the fresco first dried" / "Michaelangelo did not add any layers after the fresco dried that were part of how he intended that fresco to appear".
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
74% picked this
challenging the definition of a
No Match: challenge key term
The only conceivable "key term" in this argument is fresco, and Stephen certainly isn't challenging the definition of fresco as "paint that has been applied to wet plaster".
2% picked this
drawing a conclusion other than
No Conclusion Drawn
Stephen's "But have you considered X?" response is just creating some doubt about Zach's argument. Stephen doesn't conclude anything definitive himself.
7% picked this
denying the truth of one
Didn't Deny a Premise (Always Wrong)
Practically every Method of Response question has an answer like this that says the 2nd speaker just rejected the legitimacy of the 1st speaker's evidence. That has never been correct so far. As we know, the typical thinking game of Logical Reasoning is about accepting the stated premises but arguing with the reasoning moves or assumptions being made on the basis of them.
10% picked this
demonstrating the Zachary’s conclusion is
Doesn't Prove Contradiction
Saying that Zach's conclusion is not consistent with his premises is saying, "Zach's conclusion contradicted his evidence." Stephen definitely hasn't accused Zach of doing something that dramatically wrong. Stephen is saying that the advice given in the conclusion may contravene the goal it's meant to achieve, but he doesn't disagree with the premise. The premise is that "later painters have added layers to the Sistine Chapel's fresco, thereby obscuring the original fresco work of Michaelangelo". Stephen isn't saying, "your conclusion contradicts the idea that later painters added layers".
8% 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