LSAT 142 – Section 1 – Question 11

LSAT 142 - Section 1 - Question 11

December 2014

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:16

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
PT142 S1 Q11
+LR
Most strongly supported +MSS
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
2%
157
B
4%
156
C
4%
155
D
90%
164
E
1%
152
137
145
153
 +Medium 145.991 +SubsectionMedium

Critic: In her presentation of important works of art in her art history textbook, Waverly claims to have presented only objective accounts: “I have sought neither to advocate nor to denigrate what I included.” In writing about art, a pretense of objectivity never succeeds: clearly, Waverly writes much better about art she likes than about art to which she is indifferent.

Summary

Waverly claims to be objective when writing about important works of art in her art history textbook. However, objectivity never succeeds when writing about art. Therefore, Waverly writes much better about art she likes than about art she’s indifferent about.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Waverly does not actually write about art in an objective way she intended.

A
Waverly believes that a historian of art should not prefer certain works of art to other works of art.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what Waverly believes. We only know her intention to write objectively.

B
Waverly has only included works of art that she has strong opinions about in her textbook.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether Waverly has strong opinions about any of the artworks in her textbook.

C
Waverly wrote her textbook with the intention of advocating the works of art that she likes best.

This answer is unsupported. We only know that Waverly’s intention was to be objective in her writing. We don’t know about any of her other intentions.

D
Waverly has not succeeded in her intended objectivity about works of art discussed in her textbook.

This answer is strongly supported. If Waverly wrote about some artworks better than others based on her personal feelings, then she is not writing objectively.

E
Waverly does not really believe that objectivity is a desirable trait in an art history textbook.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what Waverly believes. We only know her intention to write objectively.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 142 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply