LSAT 36, Logical Reasoning I, Q26

QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: Vermeer was not constrained by lack of props. He could have had as many props as he wished.

REASONING: Vermeer used few props, but they were expensive. 

ANALYSIS: “Dearth” means lack of. The correct answer tells us that if the lack of props caused the lack of variety then we wouldn’t have seen expensive props.

But we did see expensive props in the paintings. So there must not have been a lack of props. 

___________

1. This could actually weaken the argument by showing the Vermeer lacked props.
2. This doesn’t support the idea that Vermeer had access to many other props as well. Maybe he only had a few.
3. This could support the idea that Vermeer didn’t have access to many props. The ones he used came from family.
4. This could explain why Vermeer used those items. But it doesn’t explain why he didn’t also use other items, and it doesn’t let us prove that Vermeer had easy access to other props.
5. CORRECT. We did see expensive props, so this answer choice tells us there was no “dearth.” 

---

Need help with LR? → Sign up here

Try the LSAT Hacks Course

Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly