PrepTest 106, Section 2, Question 9
Curator: The decision to restore the cloak of(101 more words not shown)
The assertion that a later(16 more words not shown)
- AIt is the(11 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(8 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(8 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(9 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Changing a painting's colors sounds like interfering with it. But if someone else painted over the artist's work, removing that later layer might instead restore what the artist intended. That's the distinction the curator needs us to accept.
The tests give the curator a reason to suspect a later alteration: the red paint was added after completion and wasn't mixed in Veronese's workshop. I could still ask whether Veronese authorized someone else to make a change. And the critic offers another reason to hesitate: an early copy already shows a red cloak. But we don't have to settle the restoration dispute to identify the curator's reasoning.
The question asks about the assertion that another artist tampered with the painting. Compare it with the curator's first statement. Why is restoring green justified? Because someone else apparently tampered with the painting. Does “restoring green is justified” explain why someone else must have tampered with it? No. The support runs from the tampering claim toward the restoration decision.
What we’re looking for
Now look one step earlier. The tests support the tampering claim. That gives the claim two jobs: it receives support from the tests and supplies support for the final recommendation. It's a conclusion along the way, not the destination of the argument.
Working the answers
- A
The curator's main point is that the restoration decision is fully justified. The claim about another artist helps explain why the curator thinks so. Calling it the main point would stop one step too soon and leave out what the curator uses that claim to support.
- BCorrect
“Subsidiary conclusion” means a conclusion that supports a further conclusion. Here the tests support the inference that another artist tampered with the painting; that inference then supports restoring the cloak to green.
We don't identify this role merely because the sentence begins with “hence” or comes last. We identify it by both relationships: evidence leads into this claim, and this claim leads onward to the justification for restoration.
- C
The statement doesn't define or clarify the meaning of a term. It makes a factual inference about what happened to this painting. Explaining what a word means would play a different role from deciding who likely altered the work.
- D
There is no general position about a class of paintings being defended by this one example. The curator is discussing this particular painting and this particular restoration. The tampering claim supplies a reason for that decision rather than an instance supporting a broader generalization.
- E
Saying someone else altered the painting is different from saying restoration is justified. The two claims are related as reason and conclusion; one doesn't merely repeat the other for emphasis. The curator needs the first to help persuade us of the second.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.