#18 - There is no mystery as to why figurative painting

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Main Point. The correct answer choice is (E)

The argument presented in this stimulus is that people in the 1970's wanted recognizable images to look at, and it was that desire that led to the revival of figurative painting.

The stimulus begins by claiming that the reason for the revival in the 1970's is no mystery, and you should expect the stimulus to supply that reason. Since the stimulus immediately states "People want to look at recognizable images," you should realize that this answer to the claim‘s implied question is the conclusion. The remainder of the argument philosophizes about why people might like to look at recognizable images, but makes no clear conclusion. You should notice that statements beginning with "perhaps" are not necessarily conclusions. However, even if you did not pinpoint the exact concluding sentence, you probably realized that the after claiming the cause of the revival was no mystery, the argument generally discusses artistic preferences of one sort or another, so it should not be too hard to get the idea that generally the point of this argument is that people's artistic preferences in some sense led to the 1970's revival.

Also, you should note that the stimulus seeks to give a cause for the 1970's revival, and the correct answer choice should include that cause-effect relationship, since you are asked for the main point.

Answer choice (A): The stimulus attempted to explain the revival of figurative painting, not the content of abstract paintings. This choice is unsupported, and not the main point.

Answer choice (B): If anything, a return to figurative painting suggests a return to tradition, and this answer choice is contrary to the passage. Also, the passage was attempting to determine the cause of the revival, and answer choice (B) does not suggest any cause for the revival, and is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): The argument attempts to explain the cause of the 1970's revival, and suggests that it is driven by the demands of viewers. There is no suggestion that an artist's talent might be a determinant in what kind of style to prefer. Furthermore, the stimulus sought to supply a cause for the revival, and this answer choice is not stated as a cause for the revival. This answer choice is incorrect, although it is amusing because it speaks to an incorrect and philistine assumption common to the public. The LSAT test writers frequently provide incorrect choices based on backward, close-minded attitudes or common, false assumptions.

Answer choice (D): The stimulus suggests that the art-viewing public resents abstract art, but that does not imply that the art-viewing public does not understand such art. Furthermore, this answer choice is not stated as the cause for the revival. Also, as a note, it is no better to immediately discard the general public than to mindlessly accept its judgments, and you should avoid this answer choice, which is the intellectual snobbery compliment to the inverted snobbery in answer choice (C).

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. In keeping with the ambiguity of the argument, this response defines the cause of the revival as "artistic preferences." Also, none of the other responses are actually stated as a cause for the revival, and you should choose this answer.

[LawCraft]

Using this question as an example, can you help explain the methodology used to (i) sufficiently summarized the argument in stimulus; and (ii) identify the conclusion.

(i) I also like to restate what the passage states to help frame things before going to the answer choices. But, I find it difficult to make sufficient statements such as the one above due to fear of carelessly adding something that I assumed. In this example, I did not realize this was all driven by people's desire, so it literally was not stated. Thus, I feel if the answer choices were more convoluted, I would have fallen into a trap.

(ii) Although I selected answer choice E, I am not confident in my ability to dissect these problems in a consistent manner and want to work on building that foundation. I was able to eliminate the other answer choices, but if asked could not confidently identify the conclusion in this passage. In the absence of helpful conclusion identifiers, how should one go about finding the main conclusion?

It's a challenge to retrain the way I think when approaching this test and I do not want to make any assumptions. Any advice on how to approach LR problems, given my stated weaknesses, would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

I'll give it a shot, LawCraft!

As with most LR stimuli, there is an argument present here. Only relative few questions lack an argument, and those tend to be Must Be True, Resolve the Paradox, and Cannot Be True questions, mostly. So, as with most LR stimuli, my first step is to ask myself "what is the author trying to prove here?" The answer to that question should be the conclusion of the argument, the thing that gets all the support and gives none.

The next thing I ask is "how did this author attempt to prove that conclusion?" The answer to that question gives me my premise(s), and putting those together with the conclusion gives me the summary, or abstraction, of the argument.

What is he trying to prove? That the cause of the revival is not mysterious, but is that people want to see recognizable images. I know this is the conclusion because it gets some support from what follows, and it does not in turn support anything else.

What is the evidence? Recognizable images evoke empathy, abstract painting does not, and abstract art feels like a rejection of the viewers world. I know these are premises because none of them get any support, but they are all intended to support something else (the conclusion).

That's really what it boils down to - what is getting the support and giving none? What is the author trying to prove? How does he attempt to prove it? Carry on that sort of active internal dialogue as you read, and you may find that dissecting these arguments is much easier than you realized.

I hope that helps!