Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S2 · Q14 The arousal of anger

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

The arousal of anger is sometimes a legitimate artistic aim, and every legitimate artwork that has this aim calls intentionally for concrete intervention in the world.

Conclusion

It's wrong to say that . (i.e. At least some legit art does not have concern for beauty as a characteristic)

Evidence

Sometimes legit art aims to arouse anger and calls intentionally for real world action.

Evaluate

We have to get from what we know is a characteristic of some legit art (aims to arouse anger / calls for concrete intervention) to what the conclusion is trying to say is not a characteristic of some legit art (concern for beauty).

Goal

Look for an answer saying, , or an answer saying, .

14.

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. There are works that are

    Out of Scope: not legitimate art

    We're only concerned with trying to prove that "some legit art doesn't have concern for beauty as a characteristic". Hearing about what is true of non-legit art doesn't help us prove anything about legit art.

    24% picked this

  2. Only those works that are

    Opposite

    This is saying "if not exclusively concerned with beauty, then not legit art". Meanwhile, our author is trying to prove that "some art that isn't concerned with beauty is legit art."

    3% picked this

  3. Works of art that call

    Too Weak

    We are trying to prove that some legit art does not have concern for beauty. This is only letting us say that some legit art doesn't make beauty its #1 concern. Not gonna cut it, on Sufficient Assumption.

    10% picked this

  4. Correct

    No works of art that

    Why this is right

    If it calls for intervention, it's not concerned with beauty. We know that this legit art that aims to arouse anger is also calling for intervention. According to this answer choice, that art is therefore not concerned with beauty. So the author has successfully proven that some legit art is not concerned with beauty.

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

    57% picked this

  5. Only works that call for

    No Impact

    This answer says nothing about "concern for beauty", so it's useless for what we're trying to prove. This says, "if it doesn't call for intervention, it isn't legit", but we don't need to connect legit and call for intervention. We already know we have examples of "legit art that calls for intervention". The only thing we're missing is getting from that idea to the author's desired conclusion that this art "doesn't have concern for beauty as a characteristic".

    7% 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