PrepTest 157, Section 2, Question 12
Art student: Great works of art evoke passionate(37 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AOne of the(13 more words not shown)
- BThe argument treats(21 more words not shown)
- CThe argument misapplies(16 more words not shown)
- DThe argument contains(9 more words not shown)
- EThe argument draws(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A passionate reaction doesn't automatically make a painting great. What if great art also requires good technique?
The student's starting rule runs one way: great works of art evoke passionate responses. So if a work is great, we should find that response. Reilly's work does produce intense emotion, which satisfies the stated requirement. But the rule never says that satisfying this one requirement is enough. There might be other standards the work fails. A viewer could also react intensely because a painting is disturbing or objectionable, without judging it a great work.
What we’re looking for
That's our prediction for the flaw question. The student treats something required for greatness as a guarantee of greatness. Translate the formal language in the choices back into those two ideas: the passionate response is the requirement, and being great art is the quality the student claims to have established.
Working the answers
- A
This would fit an argument that already called Reilly's work great in a premise and then concluded it was great. Here, the premise says his work evokes intense emotion. That's different from calling it great, which is exactly why the argument needs a connection it doesn't have. The mistake isn't simply assuming the conclusion in a premise.
- BCorrect
The necessary condition is evoking a passionate response: according to the opening rule, great art must do that. The student treats the response as sufficient, meaning enough by itself to guarantee that Reilly's art is great. But meeting one requirement doesn't establish that every requirement has been met. The possible need for good technique makes the missing step concrete.
- C
We do have a general statement about a class—great works of art. The problem isn't that Reilly is an unusual exception to an otherwise applicable rule. We haven't established that his work belongs to that class at all. The student uses a response associated with great art to place his work in the category, which the rule doesn't authorize.
- D
An insufficient sample would look like examining one of Reilly's paintings and concluding that all his paintings are great. The argument doesn't make that kind of move from a few examples to a general claim. It starts with a general rule and misuses it to evaluate his art.
- E
The premise already involves a value judgment: it talks about great art. The conclusion also concerns greatness, so this isn't a leap from purely value-free facts to an evaluation. The error is in treating one stated requirement for that evaluation as a complete test for it.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.