LSAT 106 – Section 2 – Question 09

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 09

June 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:09

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT106 S2 Q09
+LR
+Exp
Argument part +AP
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
14%
159
B
84%
166
C
0%
158
D
1%
151
E
0%
158
130
143
156
 +Medium 147.566 +SubsectionMedium

Curator: The decision to restore the cloak of the central figure in Veronese’s painting from its present red to the green found underneath is fully justified. Reliable x-ray and chemical tests show that the red pigment was applied after the painting had been completed, and that the red paint was not mixed in Veronese’s workshop. Hence it appears likely that an artist other than Veronese tampered with Veronese’s painting after its completion.

Art critic: But in a copy of Veronese’s painting made shortly after Veronese died, the cloak is red. It is highly unlikely that a copyist would have made so major a change so soon after Veronese’s death.

Summarize Argument
The curator argues that the decision to restore part of a painting to its original green, rather than the current red, is justified. The curator supports this claim by asserting that another artist probably added the red to the painting. This assertion is a sub-conclusion, because it is further supported by the factual premise that the red paint was a late addition to the painting, and wasn’t from the original artist’s workshop.

Identify Argument Part
The assertion that a later artist tampered with Veronese’s painting is a sub-conclusion in the curator’s argument. It is supported by evidence from x-ray and chemical tests, and in turn supports the conclusion that restoring the original green colour in the painting is justified.

A
It is the main point toward which the argument as a whole is directed.
The claim about another artist tampering with the painting supports the further conclusion that restoring the painting is justified, so it can’t be the main conclusion itself.
B
It is a subsidiary conclusion that supports the argument’s main conclusion.
This correctly characterizes the assertion that another artist tampered with the painting. That assertion is supported by factual evidence, but also supports the main conclusion: the whole reason restoration is justified is because the red wasn’t the original artist’s choice.
C
It is a clarification of a key term of the argument.
The claim about tampering doesn’t clarify any kind of terminology. In fact, no part of the argument focuses on clarifying terminology.
D
It is a particular instance of the general position to be defended.
The argument doesn’t state any general position to be defended. The curator’s entire focus is on one specific case, and there’s no general principle stated in the argument.
E
It is a reiteration of the main point that is made for the sake of emphasis.
The claim about tampering is not a restatement, nor is it restated. The curator never repeats a claim, including the true main point that the restoration is justified.

</section

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply