LSAT 29, Reading Comprehension, Q4, LSATHacks

RC Question 4 Explanation, by LSATHacks

DISCUSSION: Delacroix is used to show that some painters in the group did not make predictions but still produced valuable art. The opposing critic in the second paragraph had said the art was mostly valuable for prophecy. 

The author presents Delacroix as a counterexample: A single example given to disprove a claim. 

A single example can prove somebody wrong; we can see that not all of the painters were prophets. 

But a single example can’t prove a general claim right; Delacroix’s example doesn’t prove anything about other painters. A and D are general claims. 

___________

1. This is a very general claim. We only have evidence about one painter: Delacroix. The author wasn’t making a claim about all cases of innovation. 
2. CORRECT. Delacroix created great art, but he did not make any predictions. This helps disprove the critic from the second paragraph. 
3. Delacroix didn’t make predictions. 
4. Delacroix is just one man. His example can’t support such a general statement. 
5. This is true: Delacroix did adapt himself. But that wasn’t the author’s point. No one was arguing artists are unadaptable. The author uses Delacroix to show that painters weren’t necessarily prophetic.

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.