PrepTest 136, Section 2, Question 8
Robinson: Wexell says that the museum wasted its(64 more words not shown)
The reasoning in Robinson's argument(10 more words not shown)
- Aoffers anecdotal evidence(6 more words not shown)
- Bgives reasons that(9 more words not shown)
- Cattacks the person(10 more words not shown)
- Dconcludes that a(14 more words not shown)
- Etakes a condition(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Would buying an old stage prop necessarily waste the museum's money? I'm not ready to accept that. A prop from a famous production might interest people because of its history. Think of the interest a collector might have in a recognizable film prop, such as a lightsaber. That gives us a possible reason to value an object even after its original use ends.
But keep track of whose reasoning the question asks us to assess. Robinson is replying to Wexell, who says the objects lack artistic significance outside a performance. Robinson says many are too fragile to perform with, so displaying them is the only way to make them available to the public.
What we’re looking for
How does being unable to use them onstage establish that the purchase was worthwhile? I can see why display would be the remaining option, but I'm still missing the reason that option justifies the purchase. We need a flaw in Robinson's response, even if we have our own doubts about Wexell's criticism.
Working the answers
- A
Anecdotal evidence would mean using an individual example to support a broader claim. If Robinson argued that all props were worthwhile because one famous prop interested visitors, that would be closer to A. Robinson instead reasons from the condition of the purchased items and how the public can see them.
- BCorrect
Wexell questions the objects' artistic significance outside a performance. Robinson explains why they must be displayed outside a performance. That doesn't answer Wexell's objection. Even if display is the only possible public use, Wexell could still ask why displaying objects with no artistic significance was worth the money.
Our own thought about historical interest might offer another defense of the purchase. Robinson hasn't supplied that defense. Nor would a high resale price by itself establish artistic significance. We have to evaluate the reasons Robinson actually gives.
- C
Robinson doesn't criticize Wexell's character or motives. The response concerns the objects' fragility and their availability to the public. It may miss the objection, but it doesn't attack the person making it.
- D
Robinson doesn't merely say that Wexell lacks evidence and therefore must be wrong. Robinson offers affirmative reasons involving fragility and display. Those reasons fail to address Wexell's point; the error isn't treating an unproved claim as disproved.
- E
There is an “only way” claim here: public availability requires display. But Robinson doesn't mix up that relationship by treating public availability as required for display. The trouble is the unexplained move from display being the only option to the purchase being worthwhile.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.