LSAT (Law School Admission Test)Logical ReasoningMedium
Art Critic: The recently discovered frescoes in the ancient city of Veridia, depicting scenes of daily life, are undoubtedly the work of a single master artist. The consistent style, intricate detail, and unique use of color throughout all the frescoes strongly suggest a singular artistic vision.
- AThe critic does not provide comparative examples from other ancient cities to support the claim of 'unique' color use.
- BThe critic fails to consider that a school of artists might have been trained by a single master.
- CThe critic overlooks the possibility that the frescoes could have been restored multiple times, altering their original appearance.
- DThe critic assumes that consistency in artistic style necessarily implies a single artist.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. The critic fails to consider that a school of artists might have been trained by a single master.
The critic uses consistency in style, detail, and color to conclude a single master artist. However, a master artist often trains apprentices or a 'school' of artists who emulate their style. Therefore, consistency could also point to a highly cohesive workshop rather than a single individual.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. While comparative data would strengthen the argument, its absence isn't the primary logical flaw regarding the conclusion of a 'single master'.
- C. Restoration affecting appearance would challenge the premise itself, not the inference from the premise to the conclusion about a single artist.
- D. This is a more general statement, but 'A' provides a specific, plausible scenario that directly contradicts the conclusion while maintaining consistency.
Alternative Explanation for Data (LSAT)
A flaw in reasoning where an argument presents data or observations and draws a specific conclusion, but fails to consider or rule out other plausible interpretations or explanations for that same data.
- The data itself is not disputed, but its meaning is.
- Requires considering multiple ways the evidence could be explained.
- Weakens an argument by showing the conclusion might not be the only possible one.
Memory trick: Don't just see one puzzle piece and assume the whole picture.