Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S4 · Q24 Nightbird is an unsigned painting

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

Nightbird is an unsigned painting that some attribute to the celebrated artist Larocque.

Conclusion (therefore)

The unsigned painting was painted by one of Laroque's students.

Evidence

Experts agree that the painting was done by either Laroque or one of his students, and the painting contains a pigment (orpiment) that has never been found in Laroque's attributed works.

Evaluate

We could interpret this as an Explain Curious Fact argument:

CURIOUS FACT: who painted Nightbird? EXPLANATION: one of Laroque's students

We would either want an alternate explanation for who painted it (maybe it was Laroque, maybe someone else that isn't his student), or we would want to undermine the plausibility that it was painted by one of L's students.

Or we could just use our classic Weaken framework, and think,

Goal

Identify an answer that provides a reason to doubt that the painting was done by Laroque's students, or an answer that suggests it was done by someone else.

24.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

  1. Few of Larocque's students ever

    Weaker Impact

    This option suggests that few of Laroque's students used techniques different from Laroque’s. It does somewhat undermine the author's hypothesis, because if L's students rarely strayed from his techniques, then it sounds a little less likely that they would use a painting pigment he never used. But techniques ≠ pigment, so it's not that relevant, and it doesn't directly address orpiment, as the correct answer does.

    8% picked this

  2. Larocque never signed any of

    No Impact

    This notes that Laroque never signed any of his paintings, but it doesn't specifically address the issue of orpiment or why the painting couldn't still be by Laroque, thus having no direct impact on the conclusion.

    5% picked this

  3. Correct

    No painting currently recognized as

    Why this is right

    This states that no painting recognized as one of Laroque's students contains orpiment, effectively challenging the basis for the conclusion. If students didn't use orpiment either, then the presence of orpiment doesn't clearly distinguish between Laroque and his students. The author is trying to use orpiment as a reason to think "one of L's students" is more likely as a hypothesis than "Laroque", but this answer makes it sound like orpiment applies equally to both of them, so the author no longer has any reason to favor one of L's students over Laroque.

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

    83% picked this

  4. None of Larocque's students is

    No Impact

    This discusses the perceived importance of students, which is irrelevant to the argument about the painting's authorship based on pigment usage.

    1% picked this

  5. The use of orpiment became

    Strengthens

    This suggests that the use of orpiment became popular after Laroque's time, which seems to undermine the idea that Laroque painted the painting and to support the idea that the students, working later, could have used it, thus somewhat bolstering the argument's conclusion.

    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