Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.6K All Categories
- 27.4K LSAT
- 16.7K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 73 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 109 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 42 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 18 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.9K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 598 Technical Problems
- 277 Off-topic
PT9.S4.Q11 - Great works of art are in huge city museums
Taosage17
Core Member
Some critics say it's unfair that so many great works of art are in huge city museums, since those people already have access to lots of art.
But this is unwarranted because there are so few masterpieces that distributing them more widely is impractical.
Plus, if a masterpiece is to be fully appreciated, it must be seen along other works that provide context for it.
I chose B here because I thought that people would benefit most from getting a full appreciation of the art, and that distributing them more widely would diminish that appreciation for more people.
I mostly understand why D is right, but does the last sentence of the stimulus play any role in answer choice D??
Also can anyone explain why my thinking for B was wrong? Thanks!
Comments
The argument is that the critic's claim is unwarranted. It usually helps to keep an "if premise, then conclusion" framework in mind.
D gives you that: (if reasonable to criticize then practical alternative) or (if not practical alternative then not reasonable to criticize)
B does not address the conclusion, and also is talking providing facilities, not distribution of artwork.
Could you also explain why C is incorrect
Because it was the point of issue or disagreement between the critics and the author. They are disagreeing over limiting access is unfair or not. The critics would agree with AC C and the author of the argument would not. And if the author doesn't agree with the AC C, it can't be a principle that the author based the his/her argument on.
Conclusion--But this criticism is in principle unwarranted
Premsie--the limited number of them makes wider distribution of them impractical
Sub-conclusion--if a master piece is to be fully appreciated, then it must be seen along side other works that provide social and historical context.
We are trying find the principle that is appealed to (to properly draw the conclusion)
A--Incorrect--the counter is not saying that metropolitan areas have more people and more people are able to access the facility(assuming facility means paintings) so they should be in the large city.
B--incorrect--this is supporting the premise and sub-conclusion, not the conclusion, that the argument in principle is unwarranted For this answer choice we do not know whether this facility is in a large city but the city is isolated, is the author using density of population or distance to the facility, or the many other measurements the could be used to, "get the greatest number of people the greatest satisfaction. Maybe there is like a silicon valley that is composed of people who love paintings, but the museum is impossible to get to from the painting---loving---silicon--valley--people, plus I think this answer choice is getting at Utility, if we can match the most people that would get the most satisfaction(utility) out of seeing the paintings then we have, theoretically, maximized the social utility of the paintings. However, this is not the principle appealed to.
C---incorrect--No, this would be a terrible principle to appeal to in the argument, because that is what's happening with the paintings right now, and the critic is pointing that out, like hey quit hogging all the paintings. So if our author appealed to this the critic would say, so redistributing social good is okay when you benefit, but not okay if I benefit? And this does not help to conclude that, the criticism in principle is unwarranted.
D--Correct--this is getting at the conclusion, the author says the criticism is not warranted, to help justify this conclusion, if we assume, that it is only okay to criticize an arrangement when there is a more equitable arrangement that is practically attainable then it stops the critics argument cold. This works great to justify the conclusion.
E--incorrect--intended to be displayed? okay lets assume this pertains to the argument, we do not know if where the art is not displayed in the way it was suppose to be intended, and we do not know if it will be if it is moved to where the critic wants it. Bad principle to appeal to and does nothing for the conclusion.
Uh so there are two different explanations for C and IDK which one to pick...could I just eliminate C because it doesn't connect the premises to the conclusion? C: Criticism is unwarranted P: no practical way to have a wider distribution of artwork
I think both of us were trying to point out how the AC C is irrelevant to the author's argument. And what you just did to eliminate the AC C is similar to what we did.
What does it actually mean by "redistribution of social goods"?
hello,
@nz889910 is correct, I was trying to give you an example of why c is wrong. And we are saying the same thing in different ways.
Social good in this case are the paintings, or more broadly the museum.
redistribution of social goods---this would be moving the paintings from area X to area Y.
This does not mean moving it to an area with less, or more, just moving the paintings to another area would be considered a redistribution.
Critic--it is unfair that so many great works of art are housed in the metro, because they have so much already.
author (concluding)---the criticism is in principle unwarranted.
critic---Why do you say that?
Author Reason(1)---the limited number of masterpieces makes distribution impractical.
Author Reason(2)---and to fully appreciate them they need to be along side other works for cultural and historical context.
What did the author base his conclusion on? What justified the author is saying, the criticism is unwarranted? What can we add to the argument so that the author is correct? How did the author come to his/her conclusion? How can the critic be fundamentally wrong?
If the author responds, it is unreasonable to enforce redistribution of social goods that take from some to give to others, does that make the authors conclusion of "the criticism on principle is unwarranted(not justified in saying) valid?
These are some of the questions I asked myself on this question and similar PSA questions.
I hope this helps.
Are you by any chance an English learner? This test is hard even for native speakers, and I would imagine it would be worse for those who are English learners.
I am an English learner and I have trouble with understanding/paraphrasing what is written as well.
Uh no. I was born here and english was my first language.
Hm. Does that mean C is factually correct but just not a principle?
I wouldn't say C is factually correct because this answer requires the assumption that work of art/ masterpieces are social goods; and although you shouldn't attack reasonable assumptions, C is not factually correct and being factually correct shouldn't be a focus of eliminating C. C not being a principle is.
If you are struggling with understanding the stimulus, I recommend you seek tutoring as understanding the stimulus is a fundamental skill for LSAT. Tutors can help correct your incorrect thinking quickly so you don't develop bad habits.