QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: Art teachers should use colored paper rather than paint to teach color.
REASONING: Colored paper is more consistent in its color than paint. This lets teachers show color in varying contexts.
ANALYSIS: This is a tricky question. This argument sounds good, but the author didn’t actually give a reason consistent color is useful. The LSAC wants you to assume that consistency is a good thing. But who knows? I certainly don’t know much about teaching color.
The wrong answers are mostly irrelevant. The stimulus says it’s possible for two pieces of paper to have the same color. Obviously, in most cases two pieces of paper will be different colors. So what? The stimulus is only talking about those situations where the paper is the same color.
- The argument didn’t mention different textures. Obviously, paper can be different. The important point is that it is possible for two separate pieces of paper to be the same.
- The stimulus said paper was useful because two pieces of paper could have the same color.
Obviously, you can have two pieces of paper with color differences. But we don’t care about those.
- ‘Apparent color’ is not the same thing as actual color. It’s possible for two pieces of paper to have the same color. The stimulus said this lets us see how the color would look in different contexts. Changing light conditions are an example of a different context. This answer has no effect on anything.
- CORRECT. Negate this, and you get “observing the impact of color in varying contexts does not help students learn about color”. That eliminates the only advantage paper had over paint.
- The only purpose of using paper was to show students how the same color differed in different contexts. Beyond that, to doesn’t matter if students understand anything about paper.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly