#16 - Must Be True

[mbeatty]

Hello, I read the explanations as for why B was incorrect but I still have some questions. Answer choice B brings up "a naturally highly reflective metal that was technically suited for sculpture" (chrome-nickel steel), and "other highly reflective metals that were not so suited" (gold-not so suited due to expense). Is the only reason B is incorrect because "technically suited"/"not so suited" would be referring to more physical properties and not expense?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, MBeatty,

This is indeed a challenging question, but because you've provided me with a good explanation of your reasoning, I will be better able to answer your question! Thank you!

First off, this question specifically addresses the statement in lines 25-27 and the "distinction" brought up there. In your question you bring up "chrome-nickel steel," but the problem is that chrome-nickel steel has yet to be addressed in the passage. The "distinction" in question must concern the existing discussion prior to the consideration of chrome-nickel steel. In the immediately preceding lines, the author remarks that Noguchi had frequently polished Brancusi's statues of bronze and brass. This polishing led Noguchi to ponder sculptors' reliance on negative light. Why? Because aside from the expensive gold, no other metal (such as bronze or brass) would maintain its luster. This is a direct and well-supported inference from combining these statements. Hence the distinction. The author contrasts bronze and brass (which lose their reflective properties) with gold (which does not).

Answer Choice (B) brings up information from the wrong part of the passage and does not answer the question asked.

I hope this helps!

[blade21cn]

The referenced text in lines 25-27 is "sculptors through the ages had relied exclusively upon negative light - that is, shadows - for their conceptual communication, precisely because no metals, other than the expensive, non-oxidizing gold, could be relied upon to give off positive-light reflections." It is clear that the distinction was drawn between normal metals used in sculptures (brass and bronze) and the expensive, non-oxidizing gold. Chrome-nickel steel appeared in the following paragraph. So I'm really reluctant to look for information concerning Chrome-nickel steel later in the text to answer this question.

The most obvious distinction is brass and bronze produce negative light reflections, while gold produces positive-light reflections. I have no idea what negative and positive light reflections mean and the "shadow" explanation is not particularly helpful, but I assume it has something to do with the degree of reflections that they give off. That's why I'm looking for something like "moderately reflective" v. "highly reflective," which is (A). I eliminated (B) and (D) because they both compare two highly reflective metals.

Alternatively, since the negative v. positive distinction does not come up in the answer choices, with the backdrop of Noguchi being original, unconventional, creative, and evolving all the time, I'm leaning towards (E) - acceptable to both traditional and modern sculptors v. purely experimental. It was also specifically supported by line 22 - "Noguchi ... pondered the fact that sculptors through the ages had relied exclusively upon negative light ..." Wouldn't "sculptors through the ages" correlate with conventional sculptors and Noguchi's creative use of metals that give off positive-light reflections indicate its experimental nature, since he's the one who likes to try out (experiment with) new things?

I would never thought of (C) because it doesn't speak to the negative-positive distinction, but introduces a temporary v. permanent distinction. It's hard to draw that distinction solely by the wording of "could or could not be relied upon to give off positive-light reflections," as it literally means it could not reliably or consistently produce positive light reflections, or simply it couldn't, as opposed to it could, but only for the initial time.

[Adam Tyson]

It looks to me like you have read into the text one concept - one word, really - that isn't there, blade21cn, and that is what's causing you trouble. The passage never speaks of "negative light reflections," but only of "negative light." The distinction is not between two types of reflection, but between reflection (which you get from metal) and shadows (which is all you can get from stone). Negative light is literally NOT a reflection, because reflections require light. It is the absence of light. It's shadow, or darkness.

The lines in question draw a distinction between those metals that can reflect light but which oxidize (rust) over time and lose that reflective property (brass and bronze are mentioned) and the one metal known at the time that does not oxidize, which is gold, and which therefore retains its reflective properties forever. Chrome-nickel steel isn't really the issue in these lines, although it certainly does fall into the category of reflective stuff that, like gold, doesn't rust.

So, sculptors had always relied on shadows in creating their art, because reflections weren't reliable over time. Reflective stuff rusts. Except gold, which is expensive.

I hope that sheds a little light on the shadows in this passage for you!

[sdb606]

The problem I have with this question is at what point does the author draw the distinction? I would say the author draws the distinction at, "Here, finally, was a permanently reflective surface, economically available in massive quantities." The distinction doesn't happen until that sentence occurs. Which means the author does NOT draw the distinction with "no metals..."

A distinction between two things can only be made once the contrasting thing is introduced. I would feel better if the question had said, "The author uses "no metals..." to draw a distinction between... but not "In saying that..."

[German.Steel]

This is the single most poorly-written LSAT question I have ever seen, and I've seen it all. As the previous poster says, what the heck distinction are they even talking about? You have to go further into the passage to get to where the distinction is even drawn. So that's flaw #1.

From a psychometric perspective, in terms of what reading comprehension skills are being tested, that's entirely unclear here, as it seems finding the correct answer hinges almost entirely on a solid grasp for the definition of a technical term, "nonoxidizing." There aren't any great context clues you can pick up on to easily navigate to the correct answer without knowing the definition of "nonoxidizing." So the question is not effectively testing any discernible reading comprehension skills. That's flaw #2.

And #3, the answer choices are just a mess, but that's already been noted in great detail so I won't bother recapitulating.

I've said this before but I think the 50s tests were by far the sloppiest in terms of question quality and correct answer ambiguity. Thank goodness they've improved since; I haven't seen anything this dreadful (or anything close) on tests 70+.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi sdb and German Steel,

sdb, I'll start with you. We can draw the distinction already from the information given in that quote. There is gold, and there are other metals. Gold was a metal that existed, it was just expensive. The comparison in the statement was between reflective metals, like gold that kept their reflective qualities over time, and non-reflective metals.

German, having to go deeper into the passage isn't a flaw, it's a feature. The question isn't asking you to limit yourself to the phrase given, it's to understand it in context. That sometimes requires a broader reading of the passage.

For flaw 2, reading comprehension includes vocabulary, and non-oxidizing is not a technical term. However, even if you did not know the technical meaning, you can use context clues here to determine that non-oxidizing is something that would hold a reflective surface over time.

Broadly speaking though, I'd caution you against fighting the questions. Questions can be difficult, confusing, and complex, but that doesn't make them "bad" questions. That just gives you a challenge. They aren't necessarily poorly written, but specifically written to be complex. That's the challenge of this exam. If you are feeling frustrated with a question/answer choice, take a minute and think about why. What caught you? Why are you frustrated? That sort of insight into your own mind will help you avoid getting tripped up in the future on similar questions.

Hope that helps!

[Catallus]

Where is the textual support for the proposition that non-gold metals "can be made highly reflective"? I could not find any lines indicating that other metals could be "made" reflective, never mind "highly" so. (C) was really the lesser of 5 evils here.

[Adam Tyson]

That's an understandable objection, Catallus! Maybe it's because the passage spoke about polishing brass and bronze, and that's what got Noguchi thinking about this stuff? He saw how they could, when polished, be reflective, but they didn't stay that way, unlike gold?

Picking the least bad answer is frequently the best approach you can take on this test, so don't shy away from doing so! The right answer never needs to be perfect. It only needs to be better than the others. That's one of the things that makes the LSAT so different from, and so much more challenging than, other standardized tests. Process of elimination is one of your best strategies!

I also think there's something to be said for using the context that comes later in the passage. The fact that Noguchi wanted to create a sculpture that was "purely reflective" certainly indicates that he was looking for something "highly reflective," and that gold might have been a possibility if it wasn't so expensive, while the affordable ones were unacceptable because even if you polished them to a high shine, they wouldn't stay that way. If bronze or brass couldn't get reflective enough, why bother contrasting them with gold in the first place? Just say "they weren't reflective enough." I think that understanding of his goals makes answer C much more palatable and not evil at all.