Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S4 · Q15 Artists have different ways 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

Artists have different ways of producing contours and hatching, and analysis of these stylistic features can help to distinguish works by a famous artist both from forgeries and from works genuinely by other artists.

Statements

Distinction Artists differ in terms of their ways of producing contours and hatching.

Causal Analyzing contours/hatching can help to distinguish a famous work from a forgery or from a similar artist.

Causal Analyzing contours/hatching has shown many of the drawings we used to think were Michelangelo's are really by Giulio Clovio, an artist from the same period as Michelangelo.

Evaluate

When we're presented with causal connectors, the usual Must Be True inferences are: - A has some effect on B - anything that would need to be true for that causal connection to be plausible

For example, if we say

We can infer stuff like - the lyrical content of music can have an emotional impact on the listener - Timmy was able to discern or remember the lyrics over the background noise of the room.

Goal

We probably want something like:

- distinctive techniques used by artists can help when categorizing pieces of art with unknown authorship or - Michelangelo and Giulio Clovio had different ways of producing contours / hatching.

15.

If the statements above are true, then which one of the following must also be true?

  1. Contours and hatching are the

    Too Strong: the main

    Trap answers love to put too much emphasis on the one thing we heard about. Just because we only talked about contours and hatching doesn't mean they're the main feature. LSAT teachers often have entire lessons on Conditional Logic, but that doesn't imply that Conditional Logic is the main feature of the LSAT.

    4% picked this

  2. Many of the drawings formerly

    No Support: forgeries

    All we know about many of the drawing formerly thought to be Michelangelo's is that they turned out to be non-forgeries. They are drawings by a different artist, Giulio Clovio, from a similar time period.

    5% picked this

  3. No forgery can perfectly duplicate

    Too Strong: no forgery can

    This definitely is in the right realm, in a gist-y way. Since contour/hatching style can help to tell a real painting from a forgery, it must be true that "forgeries do not always perfectly duplicate the contour and hatching styles". But we can't go as far "no forgery ever has perfectly duplicated those features".

    4% picked this

  4. The contour and hatching styles

    Too Strong: all

    Nothing in the passage indicates that whatever contour/hatching style an artist uses in one painting, she uses in ALL paintings.

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    There is an analyzable difference

    Why this is right

    In order for "this analysis (of contour and hatching styles) to have shown that certain paintings weren't Michelangelo and were actually Giulio Clovio", it has to be true that they have perceptibly different styles of contour/hatching.

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

    84% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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