LR Question 24 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Nightbird is an unsigned painting that some attribute…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: One of Laroque’s students made the painting.
REASONING: The painting was either made by Laroque or one of his students. The painting has a pigment that has never been found in Laroque’s paintings before.
ANALYSIS: This is a classic error. The argument tells us something about one group (Laroque), and then implies that the argument has given us information about another group (Laroque’s students).
We don’t know anything about Laroque’s students’ paintings. Maybe they didn’t have the pigment either.
In that case we’d be back to square one – we have no idea whether Laroque made the painting, or whether his students did. Neither of them used the pigment.
You can’t choose between two possibilities unless you have information about both of them.
___________
- This slightly strengthens the idea that one of Laroque’s students made the painting. They all used a similar style.
- This explains why we’re confused about the painting. It doesn’t show that Laroque painted it.
- CORRECT. This shows we know nothing about the painting. Orpiment has never been found in Laroque’s paintings OR in paintings made by his students. So we have no evidence which one of the two groups painted this painting.
- It doesn’t matter whether Laroque’s students are important. They could still have made the painting.
- This might explain why Laroque didn’t use orpiment, and why his students would have used it. If anything, it strengthens the argument.
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.
Doesn’t answer choice B weaken the argument as well? If Larocque never signed any of his paintings and this painting is his classic style and not signed, wouldn’t that strengthen the argument that Larocque himself made the painting; therefore weakening the argument that one of his students made the painting?
This is a tricky answer choice, but we can ultimately eliminate it by returning to the reasoning of the stimulus. The author is drawing their conclusion on the basis of the painting containing orpiment. (B) doesn’t really weaken the argument because it doesn’t address the orpiment. We already know that the painting is in a style that is indistinguishable from Laroque’s, so if anything (B) is just a restatement of one of the premises.