PT 29.S2.P1 - for some years before the outbreak of world war 1

cal6005

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-2-passage-1-passage
Hi everyone -

I'm currently working on Reading Comprehension and am working through The LSAT Trainer. In Lesson 35, an art passage from PT 29 is dissected.

My question is about question #6. Though I understand that the author did not agree that the work of pre-World War I painters had the power to predict social changes (and therefore why this is the correct answer choice), I do not see how answer choice D can be said to have been shown in the passage. Mike Kim writes in his explanation that the author did say that artists had the power to anticipate later artists in the second paragraph, but I don't see how this was stated or can even be inferred. "Developments in the arts" does not equal "anticipation of later artists." Arts ≠ Artists. Maybe he is seeing something that I'm just not seeing, but I would love to understand how he got to this conclusion.

Am I just being too critical of the words here?

Any input is appreciated!


Oh and a PS to anyone who is unsure about buying The LSAT Trainer - it's helped me increase my practice test scores by 16 points but more importantly it's helped me to form better habits for understanding why answer choices are right/wrong and what exactly each question type demands - which none of the other prep books did for me.

runiggyrun

I think the LSAT writers are banking on people being suspicious of arts being replaced with artists. But ultimately there's no art without artists, so if you're anticipating developments in the arts you are necessarily anticipating the artists producing those works of art.

cal6005

Hey thanks for explaining that for me. I think it just tripped me up because it seemed like they were distorting what was actually said in the passage, but I think I might have been overthinking it.

Cant Get Right

Yeah, @runiggyrun is pretty spot on. I don’t think you necessarily overthought it though. There are tons of examples where they use logical leaps to present a weak argument and we train ourselves to be extremely suspicious of any change in wording or concept. I don’t think it’s overthinking at all for that training to take over and flag this as something to be highly suspicious about. In fact, I’d bet they probably did this in order to specifically exploit that. The lesson here is that when those logical leap spidey senses start tingling, remember that there is one more step. You’ve got to make sure the leap is really a leap and not a logical consequence like we’ve got here.