PrepTest 137, Section 4, Question 22
Linguist: One group of art critics claims that(67 more words not shown)
The claim that there are(18 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(20 more words not shown)
- BIt is cited(16 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(20 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(27 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Both groups can agree that some paintings aren't art while disagreeing about which paintings qualify.
The first group excludes postimpressionist paintings. The second includes them, but accepts that other paintings can fall outside the category and be ignored. The linguist takes that shared position as evidence that their disagreement isn't about the meaning of 'art.'
I'm not sure the agreement establishes that much. Two people can agree that a category has boundaries without drawing those boundaries in the same place. They could still differ over the definition, or merely over how a shared definition applies. We don't have to settle that question to identify the claim's role.
What we’re looking for
The statement we're asked about is their shared acceptance that some paintings aren't art. The linguist uses that agreement to support a conclusion about their disagreement. The point isn't to prove that those paintings really aren't art; it's to diagnose what the critics are arguing about.
Working the answers
- A
This is presented as a point they accept, not the main point they dispute. They differ over the status of postimpressionist paintings. The linguist uses their agreement about some paintings falling outside art to draw a conclusion about that dispute.
- B
The argument doesn't offer an independent set of evidence for a hypothesis and then add this as a commonly accepted reason. This shared claim is itself the offered basis for the conclusion about what the disagreement concerns. The additional structure B describes isn't present.
- C
Watch 'evidence of its truth.' That would mean using the critics' agreement to prove that some paintings really aren't art. The linguist doesn't draw that conclusion. The agreement is evidence for a different claim: that these critics aren't disagreeing over the meaning of the word.
- D
The argument doesn't use the claim to explain disputes that only appear to concern paintings' aesthetic merits. Its stated conclusion concerns whether the disagreement is over the meaning of 'art.' D assigns a different explanatory role and a different description of the dispute.
- ECorrect
Both sides accept that there are paintings that aren't works of art. The linguist cites this shared acceptance as evidence for a conclusion about their disagreement: it supposedly isn't about the meaning of 'art.' E captures both the agreement being used and the separate claim it is meant to support.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.