LSAT 102 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q23

LR Question 23 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: A museum director, in order to finance expensive new…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The critics were correct that the paintings were valuable.

REASONING: The director thought the paintings were inferior. But shortly after the auction, the paintings were resold for a much higher price.

ANALYSIS: We have no idea why the art resold at a higher price. Maybe a rich friend of the critics bought the paintings at inflated prices to embarrass the director?

It’s possible the paintings were excellent, but we can’t be certain. There are many reasons why someone might overpay for bad paintings.

___________

1. We’re never told what most people think.
2. The argument accepts the judgment of expert critics.
3. This isn’t even an error. It’s perfectly fine to reject a proven yet stupid strategy even if you can’t offer an alternative. An example is: “Bob says he is going to let some sunlight into the room by knocking down the wall. George tells him that’s a dumb idea, without offering an alternative.”
4. There’s nothing speculative about the future here. Future generations won’t have public access to the paintings. That’s a certainty.
5. CORRECT. It wasn’t necessarily the director’s poor decision that led to the higher prices. It could have been the publicity raised by the critics that caused the higher sale values. “Facts” refers to the increased sale price.

Recap: The question begins with “A museum director, in order to finance expensive new”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.