LSAT 122 – Section 1 – Question 03

LSAT 122 - Section 1 - Question 03

June 2006

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

Target time: 0:54

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
PT122 S1 Q03	+LR +Exp	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Conditional Reasoning +CondR Net Effect +NetEff Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 1% 153 B 0% 141 C 96% 162 D 1% 153 E 1% 154	120 130 139	+Easiest	146.495 +SubsectionMedium

Xavier: Demand by tourists in Nepal for inexpensive thangka paintings has resulted in the proliferation of inferior thangkas containing symbolic inaccuracies—a sure sign of a dying art form. Nepal should prohibit sales of thangkas to tourists, for such a prohibition will induce artists to create thangkas that meet traditional standards.

Yvette: An art form without dedicated young artists will decay and die. If tourists were forbidden to buy thangkas, young artists would cease making thangkas and concentrate instead on an art form tourists can buy.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Yvette implicitly concludes that, in order to prevent the thangka art form from dying out, Nepal should not prohibit thangka sales to tourists. This is based on the claims that young artists will only focus on art forms whose products can be sold to tourists, and that focused young artists are needed to prevent an art form from dying. This implies that banning thangka sales to tourists would contribute to the death of thangka art.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Yvette counters Xavier’s proposal by pointing out an unconsidered consequence of his proposal, which would actually undermine his intended goal.

denying the existence of the problem that Xavier’s proposal is designed to ameliorate

Yvette never denies that the dying out of thangka painting would be a problem. She merely argues that Xavier’s proposal would contribute to that problem.

challenging the integrity of Xavier’s sources of information

Yvette doesn’t challenge any of the information Xavier brings forward, nor its sources. She only introduces new information to undermine Xavier’s proposal.

arguing that Xavier’s proposal, if implemented, would result in the very consequences it is meant to prevent

Yvette argues that Xavier’s proposal to prohibit thangka sales to tourists would result in thangka’s death as an art form—the very consequence that Xavier seeks to prevent.

using an analogy to draw a conclusion that is inconsistent with the conclusion drawn by Xavier

Yvette doesn’t draw any analogies. She directly discusses the same subject and situation that Xavier does.

showing that the evidence presented by Xavier has no bearing on the point at issue

Yvette doesn’t claim that Xavier’s evidence is irrelevant, only that Xavier misses an important consideration and draws the wrong conclusion from the evidence.

LSAT 122 – Section 1 – Question 03

LSAT 122 - Section 1 - Question 03

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 122 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel