Logical Reasoning

PT138 · S3 · Q1 Curator: Critics have rightly

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

Curator: Critics have rightly claimed that removing the centuries-old grime from the frescoes of Michelangelo will expose them to acids formed by the combination of water vapor in human breath with pollutants in the air.

Conclusion (should)

The restoration should continue.

Evidence (for)

The frescoes in their present condition cannot be seen as they appeared when painted by Michelangelo.

Evaluate

We start by anticipating answers on Strengthen + Principle by simply saying some version of "If Premise, then Conclusion":

If frescoes can't be seen we should as they appeared when → do / continue the painted by Michelangelo restoration

But since the answers on Principle questions are more generic and universal, we might try to be a little less specific in our trigger:

If an artwork presently we should can't be seen as it appeared → try to restore to the artist who made it its orig form

Some answers are phrased conditionally, but still reference the Conclusion and the Evidence, so we might see an answer like, or like .

However, this argument has a counterpremise as well, a reason we shouldn't do the restoration. When a Strengthen + Principle question mentions an upside as well as a downside, we sometimes refer to it as Weighing Tradeoffs.

The upside of doing the restoration is that we remove the grime and get the frescoes back to appearing like they did when painted by Michelangelo.

The downside of doing the restoration is that we'll expose them to air and breath that will potentially erode the original paint more quickly.

If the author is saying we should not do the restoration, then they have a principle in their minds like, .

Goal

Since the author is saying we should do the restoration, then they have a principle in mind like,

Let's look for that Weighing Tradeoffs sentiment or something more like our original Linking ideas, .

1.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the curator's reasoning?

  1. The decision as to whether

    Bad Evidence Match

    The first half of this works, but the second half should match the Evidence say "... should depend on whether it can presently be seen as it appeared when the artist created it". The author didn't argue, "The restoration should continue, for these frescoes are aesthetically great".

    3% picked this

  2. An artwork possesses aesthetic value

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This principle has no language that matches "whether we should or shouldn't continue with the restoration". You could only use this principle to derive that artwork does not possess aesthetic value. No one observes ? X possesses no or appreciates X aesthetic value

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    It is acceptable to risk

    Why this is right

    This is not a lovable answer on the first pass, because it has no language about should / shouldn't do the restoration. But this is the Weighing Tradeoffs form of a correct answer. It's saying, "We're okay with the downside (exposing this to acids that could cause future damage to the frescoes) if the restoration can enable people to appreciate these frescoes in their original form (enables people to see them as they appeared to Michelangelo when he painted them."

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

    88% picked this

  4. It is right to spend

    Bad Conclusion / Evidence Match

    This is saying if it would make the it's right to spend art accessible to ? a ton of money lots of people on restoration Neither half of that conditional matches up with the argument. The premise was about "making the art appear as it originally did", not "making it accessible to lots of people". And the conclusion was saying "we should restore the artwork", not "it is right to spend lots of money on restoration". The outcome of this answer we could probably live with, since it still strengthens the idea that we should do the restoration, but the trigger doesn't match anything we were told about this restoration to it's an un-triggered conditional.

    1% picked this

  5. A picture that has become

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This has nothing to do with instructing us on whether we should or shouldn't do the restoration. This principle would only help us conclude whether something should or shouldn't be considered the same work. The argument didn't say, "Since these frescoes are covered in grime, we can therefore no longer consider them Michelangelo's frescoes."

    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