LSAT 146 – Section 2 – Question 12

LSAT 146 - Section 2 - Question 12

June 2016

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:07

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
PT146 S2 Q12
+LR
+Exp
Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE
A
86%
163
B
6%
152
C
0%
150
D
3%
158
E
5%
156
136
145
153
 +Medium 148.55 +SubsectionMedium

A 1955 analysis of paint samples from an Italian painting found evidence of cobalt, suggesting the use of cobalt blue, a pigment not used in Europe before 1804. The painting was thus deemed to have been produced sometime after 1804. A 2009 analysis also found cobalt, but that analysis suggested that the painting might have been produced before 1804.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
How could the 2009 analysis have detected cobalt and proceeded to suggest that the painting was produced before 1804 while the presence of cobalt led the 1955 analysis to date the painting to post-1804?

Objective
The right answer will describe a difference between the 2009 and the 1955 analyses. That difference must show why, unlike the 1955 analysis, the 2009 study determined that the presence of cobalt does not mean that the painting had to be produced after 1804.

A
The 2009 analysis revealed that cobalt was located only in the topmost paint layer, which was possibly applied to conceal damage to original paint layers.
This shows how the 2009 analysis differed from the 1955 analysis: the 2009 analysis revealed that there was no cobalt in the lower paint layers, so the original work could have been produced before 1804. The topmost layer—the layer containing cobalt—could have been added later.
B
The 2009 analysis used sophisticated scientific equipment that can detect much smaller amounts of cobalt than could the equipment used for the 1955 analysis.
This difference between the analyses doesn’t help explain why the studies led to different conclusions about the painting’s production date. It doesn’t matter how much cobalt the analyses found, just that they both detected some amount and still reached different conclusions.
C
The 2009 analysis took more samples from the painting than the 1955 analysis did, though those samples were smaller.
This provides a difference between the analyses, but it’s not a difference that helps explain why they led to different conclusions about the painting’s production date. The sample sizes and quantities don’t tell us anything about the presence of cobalt or its implications.
D
Many experts, based on the style and the subject matter of the painting, have dated the painting to the 1700s.
This isn’t relevant information. We’re trying to figure out why there’s a discrepancy between the conclusions of the 2009 and 1955 analyses, not when the painting was actually created or what other people think.
E
New information that came to light in the 1990s suggested that cobalt blue was used only rarely in Italy in the years immediately following 1804.
This doesn’t help us understand how the 2009 study and the 1955 study reached different conclusions about the painting’s production date. It doesn’t matter to us whether cobalt was used all the time or only rarely in the years immediately following 1804!

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 146 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply