LSAT 137 – Section 4 – Question 24

LSAT 137 - Section 4 - Question 24

October 2012

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:56

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
PT137 S4 Q24
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Link Assumption +LinkA
Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC
A
7%
161
B
3%
158
C
85%
164
D
2%
154
E
2%
155
135
146
156
 +Medium 146.883 +SubsectionMedium

Nightbird is an unsigned painting that some attribute to the celebrated artist Larocque. Experts agree that it was painted in a style indistinguishable from that of Larocque and that if it was not painted by Larocque, it was undoubtedly painted by one of his students. A recent analysis showed that the painting contains orpiment, a pigment never yet found in a work attributed to Larocque. Therefore, the painting must have been done by one of Larocque’s students.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that Nightbird must have been painted by one of Larocque’s students. He supports this by noting that experts agree that the painting is both in Larocque’s style and was either painted by him or by one of his students. He also points out that the painting contains orpiment, a pigment never found in a painting attributed to Larocque.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that the orpiment in Nightbird means it wasn’t painted by Larocque, just because none of his known paintings use the pigment. However, Larocque could have used orpiment in a painting not yet attributed to him. Based on this assumption, the author then assumes that the orpiment in Nightbird must mean it was painted by one of his students.

A
Few of Larocque’s students ever used painting techniques that differed from Larocque’s.

Since few of his students used painting techniques that differed from Larocque’s, and Nightbird “was painted in a style indistinguishable from that of Larocque,” (A) strengthens the conclusion that Nightbird was painted by one of Larocque’s students.

B
Larocque never signed any of his paintings.

The fact that Larocque never signed any of his paintings does not weaken the conclusion that Nightbird was painted by one of his students. Perhaps his students never signed their paintings either.

C
No painting currently recognized as the work of one of Larocque’s students contains orpiment.

The key reason for concluding that Nightbird was painted by a student of Larocque was the orpiment, which paintings attributed to Larocque don’t have. But if none of his students’ paintings contain orpiment either, why should we still conclude that it was painted by one of them?

D
None of Larocque’s students is considered to be an important artist.

The importance of Larocque’s students has nothing to do with the conclusion that one of his students painted Nightbird. As far as we know, an unimportant artist could have painted Nightbird just as easily as an important one.

E
The use of orpiment became more popular in the years after Larocque’s death.

Just because orpiment was more popular after Larocque’s death doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist or that he didn’t use it before his death. It also doesn’t mean that his students, many of whom presumably outlived him, could not also have used orpiment after well after his death.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 137 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply