LSAT 130 – Section 3 – Question 02

LSAT 130 - Section 3 - Question 02

September 2009

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:43

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
PT130 S3 Q02
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
0%
148
B
0%
150
C
98%
163
D
0%
157
E
1%
153
120
126
135
 +Easiest 145.135 +SubsectionEasier

All works of art are beautiful and have something to teach us. Thus, since the natural world as a whole is both beautiful and instructive, it is a work of art.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the natural world is a work of art. She supports this by saying that all works of art are beautiful and instructive and the natural world is both beautiful and instructive.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency and necessity. The author treats “beautiful and instructive” as sufficient for “art.” But according to her premises, “beautiful and instructive” is necessary, not sufficient.

In other words, just because the natural world is both beautiful and instructive isn’t sufficient to conclude that it’s a work of art.

A
uses the inherently vague term “beautiful” without providing an explicit definition of that term
The author doesn't provide an explicit definition of the term “beautiful,” but this isn’t why her argument is flawed. Even if she did define “beautiful,” her argument would still be flawed because she assumes that all beautiful and instructive things are works of art.
B
attempts to establish an evaluative conclusion solely on the basis of claims about factual matters
The author attempts to establish a conclusion about beauty and art based on claims that are also about beauty and art. She isn’t switching between evaluative and factual statements.
C
concludes, simply because an object possesses two qualities that are each common to all works of art, that the object is a work of art
The author concludes, simply because the natural world is beautiful and instructive, that the natural world is art. But “beautiful and instructive” is necessary for “art,” not sufficient. So it’s possible that the natural world is beautiful and instructive but not a work of art.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that only objects that are beautiful are instructive
The author never assumes that only beautiful things are instructive. She just argues that art must be both beautiful and instructive.
E
fails to consider the possibility that there are many things that are both beautiful and instructive but are not part of the natural world
The author only addresses the beauty and instructiveness of art and of the natural world. Whether many other things are also beautiful and instructive is irrelevant.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 130 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply