LSAT 154 – Section 1 – Question 12

LSAT 154 - Section 1 - Question 12

September 2017

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:10

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
PT154 S1 Q12
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
1%
153
B
1%
154
C
89%
163
D
6%
155
E
2%
152
136
144
152
 +Medium 147.621 +SubsectionMedium

Art history professor: Costa criticizes my theories about the distinction between baroque and neoclassical Austrian painting. He argues that since there are no features possessed by all and only the works from a given historical period, assigning works of art to period styles is intellectually bankrupt. His reasoning can be discounted, however, since his own current theories on the transition from classical to romantic French opera also presuppose such an assignment.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Costa argues that assigning works of art to period styles is intellectually bankrupt. He supports this view by asserting that there are no features possessed by all and only the works from a given historical period.
The author concludes that Costa’s reasoning can be discounted. This is based on the fact that Costa’s own theories assign works of art to period styles.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author rejects Costa’s argument simply because Costa holds other views that seem to contradict it. Whether Costa holds contradictory views does not tell us anything about whether it makes sense to assign works of art to period styles. It’s possible for Costa to contradict himself, but for his initial argument to be correct.

A
The argument confuses a necessary condition for discounting a person’s reasoning with a sufficient condition for discounting a person’s reasoning.
The author doesn’t use conditional reasoning, so there isn’t a confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.
B
The argument overlooks the possibility that theoreticians can hold radically different theories at different times.
The argument doesn’t overlook this possibility — it acknowledges that Costa seems to hold contradictory views. The flaw is the failure to recognize that holding contradictory views does not prove one of those views wrong.
C
The argument rejects the reasoning on which a criticism is based merely on the grounds that that very criticism could be applied to theories of the person who offered it.
The author rejects C’s reasoning based on the grounds that C’s criticism (that assigning works of art to period styles doesn’t make sense) could be applied to C’s own theories. This is a flaw, because holding contradictory views doesn’t establish one of those views is wrong.
D
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that what is true of art in general must also be true of every particular type of art.
(D) describes a whole-to-part fallacy. The author’s premise isn’t a statement about art generally. The author’s conclusion is not an attempt to apply a feature of art in general to every type of art.
E
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that theories about one type of art cannot be compared to theories about another.
The author does not assume that theories about one art cannot be compared to theories about another art. In fact, the author seems to think Costa’s argument concerning baroque and neoclassical Austrian painting is relevant to theories on French opera.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 154 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply