Logical Reasoning

PT130 · S3 · Q2 All works of art are beautiful

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

All works of art are beautiful and have something to teach us.

Conclusion

The natural world is a work of art.

Evidence

Works of art are beautiful and instructive, as is the natural world.

Evaluation

Just because you share a trait with something doesn’t mean that you are thing. If we said that , that wouldn’t allow us to conclude, “Thus, roses are mammals.”

More formally, the author has provided us with a conditional claim, signified by the universal all. “If work of art, then beautiful and instructive”. Next, the author provides the necessary condition, “X is beautiful and instructive”, and infers the sufficient condition, “Thus, X is a work of art”. We aren’t allowed to do that Illegal Reversal. When we mess up the direction of conditional logic, we can call it confusing the sufficient and the necessary conditions.

Goal

Find an answer that describes the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, or find an answer that makes the objection that

2.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

  1. uses the inherently vague term

    Not a Flaw

    The lack of an explicit definition for ‘beautiful’ isn’t the logical problem with the argument (LSAT doesn't require exact definitions). Even if we replace ‘beautiful’ and ‘art’ with some placeholder ideas like B and A, we could still criticize the logical move the author makes. Given the rule “all A’s are B”, knowing that “X is B” does not tell us whether “X is A”. I don’t need an explicit definition of the inherently vague A, B, X to explain to the author why this is wrong.

    1% picked this

  2. attempts to establish an evaluative

    Trap

    Too Strong / Bad Premise Match: "solely factual" Is the conclusion evaluative? I guess so, calling the natural world a work of art seems somewhat evaluative. Is the evidence solely factual? Well, no. If we’re counting “work of art” as an evaluative term, then we’d certainly count “beautiful” as an evaluative term, and both premises are telling us that certain things are “beautiful”, hence the evidence (the basis) is not solely factual. This answer describes a somewhat recurring flaw – Opinion vs. Fact.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    concludes, simply because an object

    Why this is right

    Does the argument conclude that an object is a work of art? Yes, it concludes natural world is a work of art. Is the evidence just saying that natural world possesses two qualities that are found in all works of art? Yes, the evidence says that natural world is beautiful and instructive, just like all works of art. This did not describe the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw in its typical form, but if we can match up the Conclusion part of this answer to the Conclusion of the argument, and the Evidence part to the Evidence of the argument, then we know it’s a good answer.

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

    93% picked this

  4. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Too Strong: "only"

    Does the author have to assume that only beautiful things are instructive? No, she hasn’t committed to such a strong link between those two things. If we negated this and said, “at least one instructive thing isn’t beautiful”, it would have no negative effect on the argument.

    1% picked this

  5. fails to consider the possibility

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: “not part of natural world” Does it weaken the argument if something is beautiful and instructive, but not part of the natural world? No. The author isn’t commenting on anything outside of the natural world. She’s only trying to make a case about the natural world. It would weaken the argument if we found out that there are many things that are both beautiful and instructive but not works of art.

    4% 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