Fraenger's assertion that the artist

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsRole

Keep going in LSAT Lab

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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

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. Fraenger's hypothesis explains much of Bosch's unusual subject matter. However, there is evidence that Bosch was a member that he was a member of the Brethren.

What this question is testing

Role

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

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

Answer choices

Too Strong: guarantees falsity20% picked this
It is a premise that, when combined with the other premises, guarantees the 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.
20%
Wrong Conclusion10% picked this
It is used to support the claim that Bosch was a member of
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%
Out of Scope: questioning credibility5% picked this
It is used to dispute Fraenger's hypothesis by questioning
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%
Correct63% picked this
It is intended to cast doubt on Fraenger's hypothesis by questioning the sufficiency
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.
63%
Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this
It is intended to help show that Bosch's choice of subject
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%

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