PrepTest 122, Section 1, Question 3
Xavier: Demand by tourists in Nepal for inexpensive(77 more words not shown)
Yvette responds to Xavier(1 more words not shown)
- Adenying the existence(10 more words not shown)
- Bchallenging the integrity(5 more words not shown)
- Carguing that Xavier's(14 more words not shown)
- Dusing an analogy(13 more words not shown)
- Eshowing that the(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do inaccurate paintings prove that the art form is dying? Traditional artists could still be making excellent thangkas while other painters sell cheap versions to tourists. Xavier has given us a reason to worry about quality, but not a guarantee that the entire art form is disappearing.
His proposed ban raises another question: what happens to artists who earn money from tourists? Taking away those customers might not send painters back to traditional standards. It might send them looking for different work.
That's the consequence Yvette brings into the conversation. She says young artists would switch to something tourists could still buy. And without dedicated young artists, the art form would eventually die. We can follow her objection without deciding that every concern Xavier raises is mistaken.
What we’re looking for
The question asks how Yvette responds. My starting description is that she adds a consequence Xavier hasn't considered: his ban would drive away the young artists the tradition needs. Look for an answer describing that response, rather than an objection we thought of ourselves while reading Xavier.
Working the answers
- A
Yvette doesn't deny that inferior thangkas exist or that their inaccuracies are a problem. She introduces a different problem with the proposed solution: young artists would abandon the art form. Showing that a solution has a bad consequence isn't the same as saying there was never a problem to solve.
- B
She never questions where Xavier got his information. A challenge to his sources would sound like, “Who told you these paintings were inaccurate, and why trust that person?” Yvette instead makes a claim about what artists would do after the ban.
- CCorrect
This puts the consequence more precisely than my initial description. Xavier wants to stop the art form from dying. Yvette says his ban would drive young artists away, and losing those artists would kill the art form. His proposed cure would therefore produce the very outcome he wants to avoid. Both the goal of the ban and the consequence Yvette predicts matter to this description.
- D
There is no analogy. Yvette doesn't point to another art form, another country, or an earlier ban and reason that the same thing would happen here. She directly predicts what a ban on thangka sales would do to the artists making them.
- E
The quality of the paintings can matter to the survival of the art form. Yvette doesn't show otherwise or dismiss Xavier's evidence as irrelevant. She adds another consideration: survival also depends on keeping young artists involved.
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.