PrepTest 111, Section 4, Question 25
Zachary: The term "fresco" refers to paint that(98 more words not shown)
Stephen's response to Zachary proceeds(1 more words not shown)
- Acalling into question(7 more words not shown)
- Bchallenging the definition(7 more words not shown)
- Cdrawing a conclusion(7 more words not shown)
- Ddenying the truth(9 more words not shown)
- Edemonstrating that Zachary's(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Before stripping paint away, I'd want to know what that paint is doing there. A later addition might change a picture, but we should at least ask whether some later work could instead help preserve the appearance the artist wanted.
Zachary's plan is broader than simply removing work by other painters: he wants everything except the original fresco work removed. “Fresco” has a specific meaning here—paint applied while the plaster was wet. That gives us a boundary based on when the paint was applied, which we need to keep in mind as we read Stephen's response.
What we’re looking for
Stephen introduces another fact about how artists worked: they commonly added details to their own paintings after the plaster dried. The question asks how that responds to Zachary. My starting description is that Stephen adds information that gives us a reason to question the proposed restoration. To identify the method more precisely, we need to see how that information affects the connection between the plan and its intended result.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Zachary assumes that keeping only the original fresco work will preserve the appearance Michelangelo intended. But what if Michelangelo added his own finishing details after the plaster dried? Those details wouldn't be fresco work under the definition given, yet they could still be part of his intended painting.
Stripping everything except the original fresco would remove those details too. Stephen's fact therefore challenges the assumption that the wet-plaster stage contains everything needed for the intended appearance. The distinction is between the original artist's wet-plaster work and his own later details—not merely between the original artist and other painters.
- B
Stephen doesn't dispute what “fresco” means. His response works with that definition: details painted after the plaster dries fall outside fresco work. That is exactly why Zachary's proposal to remove everything else could remove something Michelangelo intended to keep.
- C
Stephen supplies a fact that challenges the support for Zachary's proposal. He doesn't develop a separate argument to a competing conclusion. The important move is exposing a possible gap in Zachary's reasoning, which A identifies; simply describing a different conclusion misses that move.
- D
Stephen doesn't deny that fresco preserves paint applied to wet plaster or that later painters added work. His additional fact can be true alongside those premises. He questions whether the premises justify stripping away everything beyond the original fresco, rather than rejecting a stated premise.
- E
A conclusion can fit its premises yet fail to follow from them. Stephen doesn't show that Zachary's own premises contradict his proposed restoration. He adds information about artists' finishing practices that reveals an assumption the proposal relies on. That is an unsupported connection, not an internal contradiction.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.