PrepTest 112, Section 1, Question 26
In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer,(72 more words not shown)
The conclusion follows logically if(7 more words not shown)
- AVermeer often borrowed(8 more words not shown)
- BThe props that(9 more words not shown)
- CThe satin jacket(13 more words not shown)
- DThe several recurrent(12 more words not shown)
- EIf a dearth(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if Vermeer spent his entire prop budget on a few expensive things?
That would give us expensive props and very few options at the same time. Imagine buying three costly objects, then having little left to spend on anything else. Their price wouldn't establish a large collection. It could help explain why the same three objects kept appearing.
The difficult wording doesn't change that problem. To “evince a dearth of props” is to suggest a shortage of props. Repeated objects could suggest that shortage. The author tries to reject it by pointing to the objects' expense, but expensive doesn't mean plentiful.
What we’re looking for
We need an assumption that makes the conclusion follow. I'd look for a rule connecting expensive props with the rejection of a shortage as the explanation. It isn't enough to suggest another reason Vermeer liked these objects. We have to establish that a lack of props wasn't why he reused them.
Working the answers
- A
Borrowing could give him access to these expensive items without giving him many other options. Perhaps he could borrow only this small set. A tells us how he obtained certain props, not whether a shortage explains their repeated use. It doesn't establish the conclusion.
- B
Having the recurring props always available doesn't tell us whether other props were available. A person with only three objects might have those same three available every day. B fits the shortage explanation just as easily as it fits the author's rejection of that explanation.
- C
His sister could own the jacket and chairs while his access to props remained very limited. Ownership of these particular items doesn't settle how much choice he had. The argument needs a connection between expense and the reason for repetition, not the identity of the owner.
- D
Sentimental value offers another reason to reuse the objects, so I can see why this is tempting. But affection and limited options can coexist. Vermeer could have loved these particular props and also lacked enough others.
The task requires an assumption that establishes the conclusion. Providing a possible additional motive doesn't rule out a shortage as an explanation. D may make the author's view more appealing, but it doesn't get us all the way there.
- ECorrect
E says that if a shortage explained the recurring objects, none of the paintings would contain expensive props. Yet the passage tells us that Vermeer used many expensive props. The result that E says a shortage would require is absent, so that explanation is ruled out.
We don't have to accept this rule as a sensible claim about artists in real life. The question asks what would follow if we assumed it. Once we grant E, the expensive props directly defeat the proposed shortage explanation. That is the connection missing from the original argument.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.