LSAT 106 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q9

LR Question 9 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The decision to restore the cloak of the…

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

ARGUMENTS: The curator thinks that we should change the cloak’s color to green. Veronese didn’t originally paint the cloak red, and the red wasn’t mixed in his studio.

The art critic points out that a copy of the painting showed a red cloak. The copy was made shortly after Veronese died. The critic thinks it’s unlikely a false copy would have been made so soon.

ANALYSIS: The curator’s main conclusion is that we should restore the cloak to green. The statement that an artist must have tampered with the painting is an intermediate conclusion that supports the main conclusion.

___________

1. The main point goes beyond this. The argument says we should restore the painting.
2. CORRECT. We should change the cloak’s color because an artist likely tampered with the painting.
3. All of the terms in the argument are clear.
    
   Before you pick an answer like this, try to figure out which term the sentence is clarifying. The sentence in question doesn’t even specify any term.
4. Nope. The proposition is to change the cloak’s color. The claim from the question stem is evidence for that proposition, nothing more.
5. The fact that an artist tampered with the painting is just evidence that supports the main point.

Recap: The question begins with “The decision to restore the cloak of the”. It is a Role in Argument question. Learn how to master LSAT Role questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.