Logical Reasoning

PT142 · S1 · Q11 Critic: In her presentation of important

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

Critic: In her presentation of important works of art in her art history textbook, Waverly claims to have presented only objective accounts: "I have sought neither to advocate nor to denigrate what I included."

Statements

Waverly claims:

Attempts to be objective never succeed, as evidenced by the fact that Waverly writes better about art she likes than about art she is indifferent to.

Evaluate

This set of statements is very opinion-heavy. Waverly is trying to be objective. This critic thinks she is not succeeding in being objective. Since the question stem tells us to accept the critics' statements as true, we have to take the critic's side.

Goal

It's very hard to know where this is headed. The critic was essentially saying

I guess we could synthesize that and say that .

Mainly, let's be wary of strong or unmentioned ideas and find the most provable answer available.

11.

The critic's statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

  1. Waverly believes that a historian

    Too Strong: should not prefer

    Waverly wasn't putting out any normative statements about historians of art. She just claimed that in her art history textbook, she would be presenting objective accounts. She never said that others should be following in her footsteps. Also, there's a big difference between saying "I will present only objective accounts in my book" and saying "I don't prefer any works of art to other works of art". We can have our own preferences but still choose to write a book from an objective point of view.

    2% picked this

  2. Waverly has only included works

    Too Strong: only

    This feels almost more like the opposite of what's going on. Waverly is trying to write an objective book in which she neither advocates nor denigrates, so it would be contrary to her goals if she only included works for which she had strong opinions. In fact, the last claim makes it sound like Waverly has discussed some art she likes in the book and some art to which she is indifferent in the book, so that latter fact would actually contradict this notion that all the art that got included in the book is stuff she has strong opinions about.

    5% picked this

  3. Waverly wrote her textbook with

    Opposite, if anything

    Waverly said the exact opposite of this. She sought not to advocate nor to denigrate. This critic is saying, "Well, she failed to stay objective. You can tell from the quality of her writing whether she likes certain art or is indifferent to it." But this answer accuses the critic of saying, "Waverly was lying to us when she said she was trying to write objectively! In reality, she had the intention to advocate but dishonestly lied in the preface to her book." The critic sounded more like he was saying, "Despite her efforts to stay objective, you can still hear her subjectivity peeking through".

    7% picked this

  4. Correct

    Waverly has not succeeded in

    Why this is right

    This is basically just what the last sentence says: A pretense of objectivity never succeeds. Waverly had a pretense of objectivity. She declared her intention, her pretense, to be objective. The critic says this never succeeds, so of course 'never' includes Waverly's attempt. And the critic even offers an illustration of Waverly's failure to remain objective: she writes better about art she likes than about art to which she's indifferent.

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

    85% picked this

  5. Waverly does not really believe

    Too Strong: doesn't really believe

    This is very similar to (C). It attributes Waverly's failure to remain objective to some underhanded dishonesty she has. The text was saying that "Despite Waverly's hopes to remain objective, she failed. You could still hear her subjectivity coming through." But the critic could be saying that Waverly failed to stay objective by accident, despite her earnest hopes to stay objective. The critic doesn't make it seem like Waverly was lying, and doesn't really believe objectivity is a worthy goal.

    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