LSAT 106 – Section 3 – Question 24

LSAT 106 - Section 3 - Question 24

June 1999

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:23

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 S3 Q24
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
A
1%
156
B
2%
156
C
7%
163
D
85%
168
E
5%
160
146
154
161
 +Harder 148.198 +SubsectionMedium

Surviving seventeenth-century Dutch landscapes attributed to major artists now equal in number those attributed to minor ones. But since in the seventeenth century many prolific minor artists made a living supplying the voracious market for Dutch landscapes, while only a handful of major artists painted in the genre, many attributions of seventeenth-century Dutch landscape paintings to major artists are undoubtedly erroneous.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that many Dutch landscape paintings from the seventeenth century were painted by minor artists but attributed to major artists. Why? Because many more minor artists did those paintings than major artists, yet there are a roughly equal number of surviving paintings attributed to each type of artist.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes the output of the few major artists could not have equaled the output of the more numerous minor artists. In addition, he assumes paintings by major artists were no more likely to survive to the present day than paintings by minor artists.

A
Technically gifted seventeenth-century Dutch landscape artists developed recognizable styles that were difficult to imitate.
This weakens the argument because it suggests at least some of the paintings’ artists should be easy to identify. This makes it less likely that many paintings were misattributed.
B
In the workshops of major seventeenth-century artists, assistants were employed to prepare the paints, brushes, and other materials that the major artists then used.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t imply the major artists produced more paintings on average than minor artists—for instance, minor artists may have enjoyed the same assistance.
C
In the eighteenth century, landscapes by minor seventeenth-century artists were often simply thrown away or else destroyed through improper storage.
This weakens the argument. It implies the paintings by major and minor artists are roughly equal in number because paintings by minor artists were unlikely to survive, even if there were more to begin with.
D
Seventeenth-century art dealers paid minor artists extra money to leave their landscapes unsigned so that the dealers could add phony signatures and pass such works off as valuable paintings.
This supports the argument. It implies art dealers were motivated and able to misrepresent artworks by minor artists as works by major artists. There’s no indication the forged signatures would be unlikely to convince people in the present day.
E
More seventeenth-century Dutch landscapes were painted than have actually survived, and that is true of those executed by minor artists as well as of those executed by major artists.
This doesn’t say whether works by minor or major artists were more likely to survive. Without that information, this doesn’t support concluding that given artworks by minor and major artists were equally likely to last until the present day.

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