LSAT 57 – Section 3 – Question 22

LSAT 57 - Section 3 - Question 22

June 2009

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

Target time: 1:53

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
PT57 S3 Q22
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
13%
163
B
64%
167
C
12%
160
D
8%
159
E
3%
157
151
160
169
 +Hardest 146.07 +SubsectionMedium

Kudos to the LSAT writers. They've out done themselves with this question. I hope you didn't spend too much time getting this one wrong.

The passage is tough to understand. The writers make us think that a problem was solved when really, the problem still exists, just pushed one layer down. Crafty, crafty!

Let's pretend you're a painter name van Gogh. You're fucking awesome and you know it. Problem is, no one else knows it. But, alas, despite your god like skills with a brush, your body still needs mortal nourishment, clothing, and shelter. That means you need money. That means (because this is the stupid 1800's), you need to find a wealthy patron... who wants you to paint his ugly children. You'd like to not compromise your artistic genius, to not sell out, so to speak. But of course, that's a highly probably occurrence since no wealthy patron recognizes or agrees with your godly aesthetics.

Here's where the LSAT writers come to "the rescue". They say, "wait, the wealthy are dispersed among the various schools of art in roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population". So no worries van Gogh. Just join up with one of those schools of art and you're all set. You know, maybe that one over there, on the corner with the flashing neon sign.

You see how this doesn't solve your problem? Previously, it's the patrons that you'd have to pander to. Now, it's the schools of art you'd have to pander to. What's the difference? You have to pander either way. The problem was not solved, just pushed one layer down.

But, of course, it certainly felt like it was solved when you were reading the original passage didn't it? Good job, LSAT writers.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 57 Explanations

Section 1 - Logic Games

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply