#25 - Zachary: The term "fresco" refers to paint that has

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)

Because later painters allegedly made additions to Michelangelo’s frescos in the Sistine Chapel, Zachary is arguing that everything except the original fresco work must be stripped away in order to restore the chapel to what Michelangelo intended. Zachary’s conclusion is based on the assumption that nobody other than later painters could have made the additions in question. What if Michelangelo himself added painted details to his own fresco work after the frescos had dried? This is precisely at the core of Stephen’s counterargument: offering an alternative explanation for the evidence presented by Zachary, thus questioning the implicit assumption that Michelangelo could not have added the details himself.

Remember: a counterargument presenting alternate explanations or causes for a given effect can always be described as an argument questioning an implicit assumption on which the opposing position depends. Whenever we weaken causal arguments, we always question the author’s assumption that she was able to identify the proper cause for the given effect.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above.

Answer choice (B): Stephen does not challenge the definition of “fresco” or any other key term in Zachary’s argument. This answer choice is frequently an incorrect answer to Flaw in the Reasoning and Method of Reasoning questions.

Answer choice (C): While this may seem an attractive answer because Stephen suggests a conclusion other than the one reached by Zachary, he never explicitly stated what his conclusion is. Stephen’s goal is to weaken Zachary’s conclusion, not present one of his own.

Answer choice (D): Stephen never challenged the accuracy of the evidence in Zachary’s argument – he merely offered an alternative way of explaining it. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): Stephen does not argue that Zachary’s evidence itself leads to a different conclusion. Instead, he offers alternative evidence that might point to a different conclusion. This answer choice is incorrect.

[EE2020]

Confused about how Zachary is "alleging" that later painters altered M's work. I was torn between A and D based on the language used in each answer choice. To me, each has an element that is accurate and one that is flawed.

A -- seems right because Stephen really is "calling into question" one of Zachary's premises, but to me that premise is stated as a fact (as opposed to an assumption): the additions in question (to M's work) were "known to have been made by later painters..."

D -- on the other hand, Stephen isn't really denying the truth of anything, but as mentioned above I took the line in question from Zachary's argument as a stated fact and not an assumption.

In retrospect, for this question specifically, I guess I could have eliminated D based on the "denying the truth" language which is obviously wrong and been left with A. But it all seems like poorly chosen language which leads to my next issue:

Many LR stimuli contain info that we are supposed to grant as fact. Almost every premise in every stimulus could be taken as an assumption, because it's not practical to list the evidence for them all in it. We are supposed to recognise some as "given" and some as assumed. In this instance, how do we know to see that line as an assumption. If the additions in question were KNOWN to have been done by painters other than M, how is this an assumption?


Thanks

[Brook Miscoski]

EE2020,

I see your question as having two related parts. First, how do we tell the difference between assumptions and premises on the LSAT? Second, how do we tell the difference between a "given" and an assumption.

The first question is easy to answer. A premise is stated explicitly by the stimulus; an assumption is not.

For example, Zachary's stimulus explicitly states that we know that later painters have obscured Michelangelo's fresco by painting over it. The stimulus then makes a conclusion about Michelangelo's intentions. However, the stimulus has not provided any information at all about his intentions, so we don't know that a return to the original fresco is needed to preserve his intentions. That's where the gap--the assumption--is found. Stephen correctly challenges that assumption by pointing out that the original fresco may not show Michelangelo's intentions, since Michelangelo may have altered it himself.

The answer to the second question comes with some experience. The LSAT instructions indicate that you're required to apply a certain amount of common sense in interpreting what you read. Clearly, your understanding of language is external but necessary for understanding the stimulus. You have to have a certain flexibility--for instance, realizing that, generally speaking, Stephen challenged a gap--therefore an assumption--regardless of how you might specifically put your thoughts about the stimulus. You will constantly be asked to allow for flexibility in the use of language. The way I draw the boundary is to ask myself whether the concept has changed, or whether there is just an alternative wording for the same concept. If the concept has changed, that's an incorrect answer choice or indicates an assumption in the stimulus, depending on where the shift is occurring.

In this case, when Zachary moved from "known painters" to "all painters" (removing everything is removing all painters), and when he moved from "known painters" to "not Michelangelo's intentions," those are conceptual shifts. They don't represent existing premises that the speaker simply didn't have time to express (if they did, no one could ever make a logically poor argument, just a factually incorrect one, absent self-contradiction). Instead, those kinds of shifts are where the assumptions of the argument fall.

[EE2020]

Thanks for your reply that’s helpful in general but I am still confused about this particular stimulus. As you defined it, the idea that painters other than M were known to have altered M’s original fresco is not an assumption. The assumption is that M didn’t intend this to be the case. I see how this is an ungrounded premise. He may or may not have intended other painters to obscure his original.

But it seems to me that Stephen’s response has nothing to do with that ungrounded premise and everything to do with the given fact that painters altered the fresco. It has nothing to do with M’s intentions. In other words, it may or may not be true that painters in M’s era commonly added details to their own work after painting the original (and the added details in those circumstances would presumably be intended). But either way, this is irrelevant to the issue of whether M intended OTHER painters to alter his original. I’m not seeing the connection between Zachary’s assumption and Stephen’s reply.

I don’t see how the last sentence in your third paragraph is correct. Stephen is not pointing out that M might’ve altered it himself, because the additions that obscured the painting “were KNOWN to have been made by other painters”. You even point this out in your first sentence of this paragraph. I’m also not understanding the whole “known painters” vs “all painters” concept in your reply.

I have a pretty good amount of experience in the lsat and the language it uses but am still unclear about this one (I had to make an account just to clarify this problem). Please help me understand what I’m missing.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi EE2020.

When we look at Zachary's argument, it says "additions known to have been made by later painters have obscured the original fresco work done by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel." Does it say anywhere that it was the ONLY additions to the fresco? It's completely consistent with the argument for there to be known additions to the Sistine Chapel that were done by other painters, but ALSO for there to be additions to the fresco by Michelangelo himself. Zachary doesn't address that possibility. He only talks about the known additions by other painters. We can't assume those are the only additions present.

That's the assumption that Stephen picks up on--the additions by known painters were the only additions. That's a big assumption. Stephen points out that it was really common for painters during Michelangelo's time to add to their own frescos. That would call into question the assumption that the additions by known painters are the ONLY additions.

Hope that helps!
Rachael