LSAT 146 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q12

RC Question 12 Explanation

DISCUSSION: The third paragraph says that Taruskin’s argument requires two assumptions:

• The elites had a consensus.
• Artists didn’t subvert elite values.

At this point, the author hasn’t said Taruskin’s argument is false. That only happens in paragraphs four and five, when they those two assumptions are false.

___________

1. This didn’t happen.
    
   Example of answer: In the first paragraph, it’s claimed that Taruskin failed to clarify that there are two ways of producing art (lines 7-10).
    
   But actually, Taruskin did clarify this, in an essay published in 2006.
2. CORRECT. The analysis is Taruskin’s critique of high art. In paragraph 3, the author argues that Taruskin’s argument depends on two unstated premises.
3. The second paragraph isn’t even an argument. It’s just a factual description of the two main ways art is produced. The third paragraph certainly doesn’t weaken this description.
4. Same as C. The second paragraph isn’t an argument, so this can’t be right.
5. The third paragraph isn’t a definitive conclusion. Instead, it qualifies Taruskin’s argument. “If Taruskin’s claims are true, then these two assumptions must be true”.
    
   A statement like that is never a conclusion. It’s like saying “If you murder, you’ll go to jail”. I’m not saying you did murder, I’m saying what would happen if you did.
    
   (i.e. The third paragraph implies it’s possible the two assumptions are true and Taruskin is correct. The disproof only comes in paragraphs 4 and 5.)