Logical Reasoning

PT153 · S3 · Q22 Laurie: In a democracy, public art

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

Laurie: In a democracy, public art should bring people together either by expressing a consensus on a subject or by helping people to reconcile their differences and to recognize that no single opinion is definitive.

Laurie's 1st Claim

In a democracy, public art should bring people together either by showing a consensus view by helping people to reconcile their different but valid views. Does Elsa argue that public art shouldn't be doing either of those things?

Yes, kind of. She is saying that public art should emphasize it when people hold radically different opinions. Laurie made it sound more like art should help people reconcile their differences.

How are those different? Laurie's sentiment is more like, A reconciliation involves bringing things together in harmony. When we reconcile paradoxes on Paradox questions, we make it so that the background and the surprising claim can live harmoniously in our heads.

Elsa's sentiment is more like,

Laurie's 2nd Claim

Contemporary public art creates only acrimony Does Elsa argue that public art has created stuff other than (or in addition to) acrimony?

No, she never comments on what modern public art has or hasn't done. Her comments are only in the space of what it should or could do.

Laurie's 3rd Claim

Public art has failed in its task. Does Elsa argue that public art hasn't failed in its task?

No Elsa's comments aren't about contemporary public art at all. They're about all public art. And it's about what public art should or could do, not about what it has or hasn't done.

Goal

It seems like the only disconnect we found related to this idea of what public art should be doing:

When people have different opinions on a subject, should public art be emphasizing those differences, or should it be bringing people together by reconciling those differences?

22.

Laurie's and Elsa's statements provide the most support for holding that they disagree about

what types of public art
No Support from Either
Neither person discussed which types of public are art are most characteristic of modern democracies.
1% picked this
whether it is possible in
Out of Scope: enjoy / support
Neither person talked about whether it was possible for the public to enjoy or support certain types of art. They only talked about whether public art should / shouldn't try to bring people together. The language of this answer most closely resembles the wording of Elsa's statements, and we can't even infer what position she would take on this answer. She thinks it's impossible for public art to bring people together by expressing consensus or reconciling differences, but we have no idea whether she thinks it's possible or not to create public art that people with radically different opinions can enjoy and support.
29% picked this
Correct
what the criterion of success
Why this is right
Laurie thinks that the criterion of success for public art is whether it "brings people together", whereas Elsa thinks that this is not the criterion of success. Elsa argues that in cases where people hold radically different opinions, it would be impossible to ask public art to bring people together, implying that we should not be asking public art to do the impossible. Elsa also explicitly says in these circumstances that public art should emphasize radically different opinions. So they disagree about whether "bringing people together" should be the criterion of success for public art. Laurie says "yes" and Elsa says "no".
Skill tested: Agree/Disagree · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
58% picked this
whether contemporary public art creates
No Support from Person 2
As we analyzed, Elsa never speaks directly to contemporary art, nor does she comment on what public art has or hasn't done. She only speaks to what public art should / shouldn't do.
3% picked this
whether it is wise for
Out of Scope: wise
Neither person is using language about whether it's wise for contemporary public art to help achieve a consensus on a subject. And Laurie is not even saying that contemporary public art should help the public to achieve a consensus. She was saying that public art should express a consensus. The art would be a reflection of the consensus that already exists, not the catalyst that helps the public to achieve a consensus they don't already have.
9% 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