RC Question 6 Explanation
DISCUSSION: A is the most common wrong answer on this question. I think it’s tempting because it feels similar to Gilliam’s attitude of defiance towards representational art.
But the similarities end there. On “author agrees” questions, you must interpret the statements literally. Interpreted literally, A is insane. Completely bonkers. I’ve seen few more insane statements on the LSAT.
No one would ever believe A. Not even that guy that made “Artist’s Shit”.
___________
- This statement is crazy.
You must take LSAT statements literally. Interpreted literally, this statement is insane. For example, it would include “You should not worry if your painting is so aesthetically ugly that it literally frightens people to death”. No one believes that, including Gilliam. - Gilliam’s art is abstract, so it’s unlikely he believes this.
- Lines 36-39 contradict this.
- CORRECT. Lines 30-34 show that Gilliam was concerned with showing the complexity of human experience. And the first paragraph shows that Gilliam was part of the Washington Color Field school, so presumably he liked their philosophy.
- Lines 36-39 show that Gilliam cared little for public expectations.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
I run LSAT Hacks, and got a 177 on the LSAT. The single best thing I've ever made is the set of LSAT Mastery seminars. They show you how to think like a 170+ scorer when doing questions. Get them here: Mastery Seminars
I guarantee you'll like them, or you get your money back within 7 days. There's no risk. Check the reviews, people have said they improved within a few days.
---------
Photos and Updates: You can follow me on Instagram here
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
Just because someone is considered part of a larger movement doesn’t mean “he liked their philosophy” — see this is the type of LSAT explanation that drives me insane. We are told not to make undue inferences not explicitly stated by the text, but then we are supposed to make an inference like that?
To me, it seems quite plausible that an artist who dislikes being boxed into explicit labels might not be a huge fan of other contemporaries that art critics decide to group together as part of a movement. And I simply disagree that A is insane. I think the bizarre artwork they describe of Gillam’s would be terrifying to be confronted with. Something tells me if Gilliam were informed that I had that reaction he wouldn’t really give a shit. After all, sometimes art is trying to elicit negative human emotions even ones such as visceral fear.
How are we supposed to differentiate situations where one such inference should be made and the other shouldn’t?
….sorry if I am coming off a bit ranting, I just feel miffed bc I feel like I should’ve gotten a 27/27 on this section, and am being a bit overreactive about this and Q13 I just commented on a minute ago. I’m gonna leave the comment sections here alone for a while now after two long ones in a row, lol!
The key here is “most likely to agree” which allows for inferences to be made. As for answer choice A, the “any” in the answer choice makes it wrong since it’s too broad. The passage only says that he refuses to abide by the restriction that African American artists are expected to make political art. We don’t know of what he thinks of any other aesthetic restrictions. It could be that he dislikes nudity or something, and thinks artists should be concerned with that.
Thanks Rosalie. While still frustrating, at least this provides some kind of metric I can at least attempt to apply on iffy Q’s like this moving forward, rather than being left with the feeling that the whole thing is just a crapshoot designed to make sure nobody can get 100% on their fancy test.
Once again, I would strenuously argue on behalf of replacing the official explanation with your comment response. Or at least incorporated as an addendum. (No knock of Graeme or anything — writing up 101 odd explanations for each prep test almost certainly requires a kind of focus and discipline I couldn’t dream of ever commanding — but yaknow, sometimes the magnanimous and articulate Rosalie or Rosalie-equivalent in our lives just ‘splained it better.