PrepTest 113, Section 4, Question 16
In determining the authenticity of a painting, connoisseurs(75 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(11 more words not shown)
- Aignores the fact(17 more words not shown)
- Bis based on(19 more words not shown)
- Cneglects the possibility(18 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes, without giving(15 more words not shown)
- Epresumes, without offering(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why couldn't a student paint something moving? Authenticity concerns who made the painting, so I initially want to know how an emotional reaction helps identify the artist. The example doesn't make that connection obvious to me.
But notice whom the author attacks. The conclusion dismisses the connoisseurs' assessments, and now I want to question that dismissal. People react differently to art. Does that mean these experts have nothing reliable to offer? Perhaps they recognize a common quality that an ordinary viewer misses.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, I'd look for that jump from variation in people's reactions to a complete rejection of the assessments. Something could involve personal judgment without being entirely unreliable. The author needs more than the fact that different people feel differently about a painting.
Working the answers
- A
Letting other people describe their reactions doesn't establish whether a connoisseur's assessment deserves confidence. Anyone might say how a painting makes them feel while experts still offered more reliable judgments about its origin. A doesn't identify the missing connection in the author's reason for dismissing those experts.
- B
Rembrandt illustrates the method the connoisseurs use. The author's reason for rejecting it is broader: emotional reactions vary from person to person. The argument isn't taking a flaw peculiar to Rembrandt's paintings and extending it to every painter. B mistakes the example for the basis of the conclusion.
- CCorrect
Which people disagree? The author moves from variation among people generally to a judgment about connoisseurs specifically. Perhaps the public has wildly different reactions while those experts largely agree about the relevant emotional qualities. That possibility directly challenges the move from the premise to the conclusion.
Agreement wouldn't prove the experts are right about who painted a work. They could agree and still be mistaken. But the author's stated reason for withholding all confidence is that reactions vary. If that variation doesn't characterize the connoisseurs' judgments, the reason doesn't establish what the author needs it to establish. This makes the expert-versus-public distinction more precise than my initial concern about treating all judgment as unreliable.
- D
The author gives a reason for discounting the assessments: people's emotional reactions vary. We can criticize that reason without saying the author simply assumes emotional impact is irrelevant. A judgment could concern something relevant to authenticity and still be unreliable. D replaces the author's actual complaint about variation with a different, unsupported presumption.
- E
The argument doesn't require Rembrandt to be better at conveying emotion than every other painter. Its example concerns recognizing a particular kind of emotional impact, not ranking all painters by ability. More importantly, the author's rejection rests on varying reactions, not on Rembrandt's superiority.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.