Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S2 · Q24 Until recently, experts have been

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

Until recently, experts have been unable to identify the artist who created a Renaissance painting depicting aristocrats in a historic battle.

Conclusion

The artist who painted the self-portrait also painted the battle scene.

Evidence

One of the figures in the battle scene closely resembles the young man in the self-portrait.

Evaluate

This argument springs from a Curious Fact / Explanation template: Curious Fact: who painted this battle scene? Author's Explanation: it's this self-portrait dude.

We want to ask ourselves - is there some OTHER EXPLANATION for the curious fact? - how plausible is the AUTHOR'S EXPLANATION that this self-portrait dude did it?

There aren't really any other causal possibilities teased here, so it's hard to think about proposing an alternate person who could have painted it. However, we could certainly come up with other explanations for the similarity between the self-portrait and the guy in the battle scene: - the dude is just an average looking white guy with a beard, so a lot people of his era closely resembled him - maybe the battle scene portrait came first, and the painter got so entranced by this one figure in the battle scene that he decided to pattern his own haircut and facial hair after him, prior to painting the self-portrait - someone who is friends with the self-portrait dude decided to paint him in the battle scene

How could we make it the author's story sound less plausible? - we could say that the self-portrait artists was only known for painting portraits (hence painting a battle scene wouldn't likely be in his oeuvre). - ? ?

Goal

Look for an answer that suggests an alternate explanation for who painted the battle scene, an alternate explanation for the similarity between the self-portrait and the dude in the battle scene, or a fact that makes it less likely that the self-portrait artist painted the battle scene.

24.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

  1. The painting of the battle

    No Impact

    The fact that there are several other people around the same age as the self-portrait artist doesn't do anything. Just because they're about the same age doesn't mean that they closely resemble him, so they're not providing alternate explanations.

    3% picked this

  2. Most of the figures depicted

    No Impact

    We already knew that this painting involved aristocrats from a historic battle, hence this answer seems to confirm much of what we'd already suspected: hey, there's a bunch of famous aristocrats in this painting, from that famous battle! This answer just says that most of the figures in the battle scene were famous historic people. As long as it leaves room for one dude who isn't famous and kinda looks suspiciously like that self-portrait artist, it's not really changing the argument.

    11% picked this

  3. It was not uncommon in

    Too Weak

    This is almost drifting towards an Alternate Explanation of "Hey, maybe the figure in the battle scene wasn't the self-portrait artist; it was a live model." - But did the live model look a lot like self-portrait artist? - just because it was "not uncommon" to use live models, is there any reason for us to think that this artist used live models for all the figures in the battle scene? Overall, this is a very weak idea to begin with, so for us to assume it's relevant to this situation is a very dubious stretch.

    18% picked this

  4. Correct

    It would have been a

    Why this is right

    This hurts the plausibility of the Author's Story. We're less likely to believe that this self-portrait artist (early in his career, before he was famous) would paint himself into a historic aristocratic battle scene if doing so would have been a violation of etiquette. This certainly doesn't prove it's not him, but Weaken answers don't have to refute the conclusion, they just have to introduce some doubt. If we were like, "Who sent you those roses? I bet it was Kevin; I saw him at the flower shop." it would hurt the plausibility to say anything like, "Kevin is allergic to roses. Kevin is already in a committed relationship. Kevin was at the flower shop to visit his friend Steve who works there. Kevin considers giving flowers to someone to be a trite gesture ... etc."

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

    51% picked this

  5. The historic battle that is

    Too Weak

    We might try to stretch this into thinking it weakens the plausibility of the Author's Story that the self-portrait artist painted the battle scene: "How could it be him, if the battle scene happened years before the artist was born?" Well if it's a historic battle, it's gonna get painted a bunch of times for decades / centuries to come. I'm sure there were a bunch of painters this year who painted a scene from the life of Jesus, or painted Marilyn Monroe having her dress blown by street-level grate. When something is iconic, people will paint it for years beyond the event itself.

    17% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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