LSAT 27, Logical Reasoning II, Q20, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Art historian: Robbins cannot pass judgment on…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Robbins can’t judge Stuart’s art.

REASONING: Robbins knows the art too well to reject it, but not well enough to praise it.

ANALYSIS: This argument assumes that art critics can only do two things when judging a work of art: dismiss or praise.

Robbins can’t do those things. But if there are other ways to judge art, then maybe Robbins can still judge Stuart’s art.

___________

1. CORRECT. If this isn’t true, then Robbins might still be able to judge Stuart’s art in another way.
2. This is too general. The art historian is making a very specific argument about Robbins, not about all art or all art critics.
3. Actually, the art historian seems to be assuming the reverse. They assume Robbins must understand Stuart’s art better (or worse) to be able to pass judgment.
4. The art historian only said Robbins can’t praise or dismiss Stuart’s art. Maybe other critics can.
5. The critic hasn’t said what Robbins will do. They’ve only said what Robbins can’t do.

Recap: The question begins with “Art historian: Robbins cannot pass judgment on”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Necessary questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.

---