Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT150 S2 Q14 ExplanationThe arousal of anger

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

TopicsSufficient Assumption

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

Start practicing free

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

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. Even granting that most art is concerned with beauty in some way, it follows that those critics a characteristic of all legitimate art are mistaken.

What this question is testing

Sufficient Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption that, if added, guarantees the conclusion follows.

Common trap

Answers that only partly bridge the gap, leaving the conclusion unproven.

Winning move

Identify the new term in the conclusion and pick the choice that links it to the evidence.

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

The question
14.

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the

Answer choices, explained

  1. Out of Scope: not legitimate art24% picked this

    There are works that are concerned with beauty but that are not legitimate

    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.

  2. Opposite3% picked this

    Only those works that are exclusively concerned with beauty are legitimate

    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. Too Weak10% picked this

    Works of art that call for intervention have a merely secondary

    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.

  4. Correct57% picked this

    No works of art that call for intervention are concerned

    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.

  5. No Impact7% picked this

    Only works that call for intervention are legitimate works

    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".

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