Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S2 · Q24 There are only two plausible

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

There are only two plausible views about where the aesthetic value of a painting lies: either in its purely formal qualities or in what the painting means.

Evidence

There are only two plausible views about where the aesthetic value of a painting lies:

1. in its purely formal qualities, 2. in what the painting means.

There exists no compelling general account of how a painting could derive its value from its purely formal characteristics.

Conclusion

The aesthetic value of a painting lies in what it means.

Evaluate

The basic form of the argument might look valid at first glance:

Evidence: Either A or B Not A

Conclusion: B

For the argument to actually follow this pattern, the final premise would need to state that a painting does not derive its value from its purely formal characteristics. The actual premise only states that there is no "compelling general account" of how this could be. This basically means there's no good explanation for it.

This is very similar to an "Unproven vs. Proven False" flaw. Saying is completely different from saying "X is not true." Fun fact: for a very long time, scientists could not explain exactly how anesthesia works. It still worked, and doctors still used it all the time.

Goal

Look for an answer choice containing an argument that makes this same invalid shift from stating to assuming "X is not true."

24.

The pattern of questionable reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?

  1. This cardiac patient could be

    Bad Evidence Match

    This argument contains a whole different gap between the evidence and the conclusion. Stating that a patient "could" be treated a certain way isn't the same as stating that a patient "ought to" be treated one way or the other. Also, the evidence indicates that there are "other methods" besides surgery or angioplasty. It's not a strict dichotomy like the original argument. To be any kind of match for the original argument, the final premise would need to state that there isn't evidence that surgery would work. It only states that there would be a long recovery.

    3% picked this

  2. Should the company be outbid

    Bad Evidence Match

    The structure of this argument is different from the original. The evidence here contains a conditional statement, where a third factor—being outbid—triggers the either-or situation. Most importantly, this argument assumes that one possibility—laying off workers—will not happen, or at least is not expected to happen. It never states that there is no convincing evidence that the company will need to lay off workers.

    4% picked this

  3. Correct

    History is driven primarily by

    Why this is right

    The evidence only states that "no historian has shown convincingly" that economic forces have primarily driven history. This doesn't prove that economic forces haven't primarily driven history.

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

    89% picked this

  4. Some analysts are forecasting that

    Bad Evidence Match

    This is similar to choice B in that the evidence introduces an additional element, the economy expanding, which triggers the either-or condition. That's different from the original argument. This argument also lacks the flaw seen in the original. The evidence doesn't explicitly state that there is no convincing evidence for X and then assume, based on that, that X is not true.

    2% picked this

  5. If the party does not

    Bad Evidence Match

    This argument has a different structure from the original, with two conditional statements as evidence: Evidence: ~A → B A → (B is more likely) Conclusion: B This doesn't contain the same type of flaw where "X has not been proven" is assumed to mean "X is not true."

    1% 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