PrepTest 137, Section 4, Question 24
Nightbird is an unsigned painting that some attribute(69 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AFew of Larocque's(9 more words not shown)
- BLarocque never signed(4 more words not shown)
- CNo painting currently(11 more words not shown)
- DNone of Larocque's(8 more words not shown)
- EThe use of(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if Larocque used this pigment in a painting we hadn't recognized before?
The experts place Nightbird in either Larocque's work or his students' work. The analysis finds orpiment, which hasn't been found in an attributed Larocque painting. That is a reason to investigate, but it isn't the same as proving that he never used it. This could be the first such work we identify.
What we’re looking for
For a weakener, I'd initially look for evidence keeping Larocque in contention—perhaps another discovery showing that he did use orpiment. We need to challenge the move from 'not previously found in his work' to 'must have been painted by a student.'
Working the answers
- A
Similar techniques are already part of the setup: experts can't distinguish this painting's style from Larocque's. Knowing that few students used different techniques doesn't settle who painted it. The argument tries to distinguish the artist using the pigment, and A doesn't challenge that attempted distinction.
- B
An unsigned painting would be consistent with Larocque's usual practice, but the argument already treats him as a possible artist before introducing the pigment evidence. It never excludes him because of a missing signature. B doesn't undermine the stated reason for assigning the painting to a student.
- CCorrect
This takes a different route from the hoped-for discovery of another Larocque painting. Orpiment hasn't been found in recognized student work either. The absence used to exclude Larocque therefore also applies to the group the argument confidently selects.
If a lack of known orpiment use disqualifies Larocque, why doesn't it disqualify his students? The evidence no longer gives the proposed basis for choosing one group over the other. C doesn't prove that Larocque painted Nightbird; it undermines the certainty that a student must have done so.
- D
An artist's importance doesn't determine whether that artist made a particular painting. A relatively unknown student could have painted it, just as a celebrated teacher could have. The students' reputations don't address the pigment-based inference.
- E
Greater popularity after Larocque's death doesn't mean the pigment was unavailable or unused while he lived. Nor does it tell us when Nightbird was painted. This general trend doesn't provide the challenge to the argument's exclusion of Larocque that C provides.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.