Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S2 · Q12 Art student: Great works of 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

Start practicing free

Art student: Great works of art evoke passionate responses in those who view them.

Evidence (since)

Great works of art evoke GW → PR passionate responses in those who view them.

The work of abstract painter zeke's art is PR Ezekiel Reilly elicits intensely emotional responses in those who view them.

Conclusion (thus)

His art is great. zeke's art is GW

Evaluate

As soon as we see conditional logic on a flaw question, we start to suspect that it will head down the road of an illegal reversal or negation (aka, the Nec vs. Suff flaw).

This did an illegal reversal.

They told us that the outcome was true (emotional responses are provoked) and concluded that the trigger was true (the art is great).

It's possible though that non-great works of art also can evoke passionate responses in the audience, so it's possible that Reilly's art isn't great.

Goal

Look for an answer describing the Nec vs. Suff flaw or one pointing out that something not-great could also elicit intense emotional responses in those who view it.

12.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument's reasoning?

  1. One of the premises used

    Circular Reasoning

    Circular reasoning occurs when a premise is essentially a restatement of the conclusion, or in order to accept it you would have to also accept the conclusion. That is not happening here. The premise that great art evokes passionate responses is not the same as the conclusion that Reilly's art is great. The premise about Reilly's work evoking emotional responses is also not a restatement of the conclusion. And you can accept both premises without having to accept that Reilly's work is great.

    9% picked this

  2. Correct

    The argument treats a condition

    Why this is right

    This is the Nec vs. Suff answer we were hoping for. "Evoking a passionate response" is something necessary to have the quality of being "great art". The author says that Reilly's art meets that necessary condition and thus concludes that Reilly's art is great, which means she is treating that condition as sufficient to guarantee the quality of "great". And of course this is flawed because something required isn't necessarily sufficient. There could be other qualities a work needs to have in order to be great, and Reilly's work might not possess those.

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

    83% picked this

  3. The argument misapplies a general

    Sampling

    This sounds like a Sampling flaw, because it discusses an atypical sample of a group/class. Nothing like that happened here. The general claim we have is about great works of art. Is Reilly's art "an atypical instance of great art"? We have no reason to think it is, so there's no way to make this complaint about the argument. We're trying to fight the idea that Reilly's art is great, not trying to argue that he's a weird example of great.

    3% picked this

  4. The argument contains a generalization

    Sampling

    This also sounds like a Sampling flaw, because it discusses a small sample size. Nothing like that happened here. There is no derived generalization. The only claim derived is "Reilly's art is great", which is not a great fit for generalization. You could generalize about the work of an artist based on an insufficient number of instances: e.g. Since the two Dolly Parton songs I heard had banjo, most Dolly Parton songs must have banjo. Since the 1997 painting from Reilly is great, his art overall must be great. But that didn't happen here. The evidence is about his work overall, not about any specific instances of it.

    3% picked this

  5. The argument draws a conclusion

    Bad Evidence Match

    This is a semi-famous flaw (really only on older tests) you might call Subjective vs. Objective. But we definitely have a premise that involves a statement about values. The first premise/sentence involves the value-laden term "great".

    3% 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