Logical Reasoning

PT141 · S4 · Q9 Fraenger's assertion that the artist

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

Fraenger's assertion that the artist Hieronymus Bosch belonged to the Brethren of the Free Spirit, a nonmainstream religious group, is unlikely to be correct.

Conclusion (rebuttal)

F's assertion that HB belonged to the Brethren of the Free Spirit is unlikely to be correct.

Rephrase: HB probably didn't belong to the Brethren of the Free Spirit.

Evidence

There's evidence that HB was a member of a mainstream church and no evidence he was a member of the Brethren.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Main Conclusion or Role, we remind ourselves that the Conclusion is typically - the first sentence and/or - some rebuttal or pivot idea

Here the first sentence was a rebuttal. The author then makes a concession towards her opponent in the 2nd sentence before introducing her supporting idea in the 3rd sentence.

Goal

We're being asked about the role of the final sentence, which is the author's evidence.

It has two claims, connected by "and" (claims connected by "and" are almost always supporting ideas).

So we're being asked about one of the two premises.

9.

The statement that there is no evidence that Bosch was a member of the Brethren figures in the argument in which one of the following ways?

  1. It is a premise that,

    Too Strong: guarantees falsity

    Whoa, (A), coming in hot there. The author's two premises definitely undermine Fraenger's assertion, but there's no way we can say they guarantee the falsity of Fraenger's assertion.

    19% picked this

  2. It is used to support

    Wrong Conclusion

    It is used to support the claim that "Bosch probably didn't belong to the Brethren of the Free Spirit", not to support the claim that "Bosch belonged to a mainstream church".

    10% picked this

  3. It is used to dispute

    Out of Scope: questioning credibility

    It's used to dispute Fraenger's hypothesis by questioning Fraenger's evidence (or lack thereof). But the author never impugns Fraenger's credibility.

    5% picked this

  4. Correct

    It is intended to cast

    Why this is right

    We can sign off on all these words: - it's a premise for the conclusion that "F's hypothesis is unlikely to be correct", so it's definitely intended to cast doubt on F's hypothesis. Is it questioning the sufficiency of F's evidence? Sure. If you say "there's no evidence Bosch was a member of the Brethren", you're impugning whether Fraenger really has sufficient evidence that Bosch was a member of the Brethren."

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

    64% picked this

  5. It is intended to help

    Bad Conclusion Match

    It's intended to show that Fraenger's hypothesis is poorly supported, This answer is incorrectly calling the conclusion, "Bosch's choice of subject matter remains unexplained."

    2% 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