#12 - City councilperson: Many city residents oppose

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion—SN. The correct answer choice is (D)

Here the city council person discusses a disagreement as to whether or not a particular edifice
qualifies as art, and thus whether the commission should make the proposed purchase. The author
says that the purpose of art is to cause experts to debate, and the edifice has met that criterion. Thus,
the council person concludes, the edifice does indeed qualify as art.

Without any additional premises or assumptions, the argument from this stimulus represents the
following Mistaken Reversal:

Art must lead to debate: Art Lead to debate

The edifice has led to debate, so it qualifies as art: Lead to debate Art

Since the question stem which follows the stimulus requires us to Justify this Conclusion, however, we
must find the answer choice which makes the council person’s conclusion reasonable—this will be the
answer choice that confirms the second conditional statement above (Lead to debate Art).

Answer choice (A): The council person’s argument is not justified by the conditional statement
offered in this answer choice, which says, more simply, that if something is art it causes debate.

This can be diagrammed as follows: Art causes debate

The council person has already established that the edifice in question causes debate; this choice
does not justify the council person’s conclusion that the edifice qualifies as art.

Answer choice (B): The council person’s conclusion is that the edifice does qualify as art, so this
choice would actually weaken that position, rather than justify the council person’s conclusion.

Answer choice (C): The council person’s argument deals only with whether the edifice in question
qualifies as art. This answer choice doesn’t even deal with the question of whether or not an item is
art, but rather whether there should be opposition to a particular type of object (the type that fulfills
the purpose of art). Since this choice fails to justify the conclusion from the stimulus, it cannot be the
correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This choice provides the needed conditional
rule—if something fulfills the purpose of art, it qualifies as art:

Fulfills purpose of art qualifies as art

With the premise from the stimulus, and the additional premise supplied by this choice, the author
can create the following conditional link:

Caused debate fulfills purpose qualifies as art

Answer choice (E): Like incorrect answer choice (C) above, this choice doesn’t deal with the council
person’s conclusion that the edifice qualifies as a work of art. Whether or not the city should make
the purchase is a separate question, so this choice does not justify the conclusion that the edifice is
art, and this answer is incorrect.

[carnegie49]

Hi,

I have a few questions regarding his assessment item.

First, could someone please identify the premise(s) and conclusion(s) for this assessment item. Is there both an overall conclusion and a subconclusion? Or, rather, two premises? Below is what I have thus far:

Premise: Purpose of Art (PA) is to cause experts to debate ideas (ED), including ideas about what constitutes art itself. PA --> ED

Premise 2 or Subconclusion: Edifice (E) has caused experts to debate (ED) what constitutes art itself E --> ED

Conc: Edifice (E) qualifies as art (A). E--> A

I recognize that from the argument we can conclude that the edifice meets the purpose of art as it causes exerpts to debate and that we need to fill in the gap from fulfilling the purpose of art to being art itself. I'm confued though by how to know from the arrows represening the logical relationship how to figure out wher the gap is.

Also, I'm at the point where I need to write these down and can't intuitively figure out the logical gap without having time to look at the logical relationships. As I prepare for test day, should I ultimately get to the point wher eI'm not writing down logical relationships assumption questions? What about for justify questions?

Many thanks!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hello!

I would call them Premise 1 and Premise 2, and you identified them correctly. Great work!

I've been answering LSAT questions now for over 6 years, and I still write down the conditional reasoning every time I see a question with it. I think writing it out is the best way to be sure you understand it; rather than trying to stop doing the writing, I would focus on trying to get the relationships diagrammed faster so it is more efficient! Sounds like you are on the right track, though.

[lsatstudier]

Hi,

I'm sorry for all of my questions in this forum, but I can't figure out why I'm missing the questions I am missing. In this particular question, how do you arrive at answer D? I feel like I understand the procedure of completing justify questions, but I am missing so many still. Would you have any advice on what to do?

Thank you so much in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

Try a very mechanical approach to this and many other Justify questions, Studier. Take whatever you find in the conclusion that was not mentioned elsewhere, and link it to something in the premises that was not found in the conclusion.

What is the new or "rogue" element in the conclusion? This thing, this ediface, is in fact art. What is new in the premises, not mentioned in the conclusion? The concept of purpose. Both the premises and conclusion talk about debate - the purpose is debate and this thing causes debate - so that idea about debate is not needed in the justify answer. Instead, link "purpose" to "it's art".

Answer D does that - if it meets the purpose of art, it is art. Boom, you have made your connection. That is what we call the mechanistic approach to justify questions, and whenever you are lost in one of these try finding your way home that way. Eliminate the common elements and link the rogue ones, and you are home.

Give that a try on a handful of practice Justify questions and see if it doesn't help you cut through the haze some. I know it works wonders for me. Good luck!

[brcibake]

Is E incorrect because it speaks to what the city art commission should do? I thought when you do an assumption question, not a justified, that is when you try to find the holes between the premise and the conclusion.

[Adam Tyson]

This question is a Justify question, brcibake, and we are looking to close a gap in the argument between the concepts of the purpose of art and qualifying as art. Answer E fails on two counts - first, as you pointed out, "should" is not an element of this stimulus. It's about what is, not about what should be, because our author is trying to prove that the edifice is, in fact, art. Second, it fails because it adds nothing to support that conclusion in that it doesn't tell us that the edifice is art, but only what we should do if it is art.

Focus on that conclusion - that the edifice is art - and find the answer that justifies (proves) that conclusion.

Keep at it!

[Khodi7531]

This is an easy question that i'm confused on.

I first highlighted that the city councilperson says "But I ARGUE that the purpose of art..."

I was trying to link what the this city council considers the purpose of art, to what he concludes. That's what would link what qualifies as art. I chose A over D because I thought it linked it, although I now see that A doesn't link it to the conclusion properly.


However D is still really weird.
The answer said, "any object that fulfills the purpose of art..." which I get is trying to link what the councilperson said to the conclusion. But the councilpersons statement was subjective. Again, he says, "I ARGUE". I eliminated D because I was thinking, "idk what the hell fulfilling the purpose of art" is. I only what the councilpersons definition of it is and he argues on what he believes. So was answer D referring to his opinion? Because if so, the answer is just assuming it's correct, when it was only stated by him.

I was looking for something more like... "councilpersons argument or the purpose of art is to create debate...thats what qualifies art."

Thoughts on this?

[jessicamorehead]

I very quickly and easily arrived at answer choice D, clearly seeing how it connected "purpose" to the conclusion. However, I would still like to know how to correctly diagram answer choice A.

I originally thought the "nothing" negated the necessary side and the "unless" negated the sufficient side - making the following: NOT qualifies as art --> NOT causes debate, with the CP being causes debate --> qualifies as art.

However, I have seen the answer choice diagrammed where the "unless" just negates the "nothing" - making the following: qualifies as art --> causes debate.

Which is the correct way?

[Adam Tyson]

First, to answer Khodi7531 - the city councilperson is making an argument, and it is her argument - her conclusion - that we are looking to justify with the correct answer. That is, we need to add a premise that proves she is right, that the edifice is, in fact, art. Her only evidence is that it fulfills the purpose of art, in that it has caused debate. To prove she is right, then, we need to make that evidence sufficient for that conclusion. In other words, we need "fulfilling the purpose of art" to be sufficient for "it's art". Answer D does that, while answer A does not, since it sets up a reversal of what we need.

That brings me to Jessica's question, about the conditional diagram for answer A. The "Unless Equation"tm does not involve negating the thing introduced by the words unless, except, until, or without. Those things remain in their original form, and they are the necessary condition. So here, in answer A, where "unless" introduces "causes debate", we start by making "causes debate" our necessary condition. No negating required!

The negating comes in when we go to identify the sufficient condition. Whatever the other term is in the conditional argument, we must negate it, and that negated term becomes our sufficient condition. Here, the other term is "nothing qualifies as art". When we negate that it becomes "if something qualifies as art" - the negation simply turns that nothing into something. So, we end up with "if something is art, then it causes debate".

We know from the stimulus that the edifice in question causes debate. If we look to answer A, that means we have met the necessary condition in that relationship. Does that prove that the edifice is art, as the councilperson argued? Nope! The occurrence of the necessary condition is never enough to prove the occurrence of the sufficient condition. To make that claim we would have to make a Mistaken Reversal, which is a flawed argument. That's why answer A doesn't prove the councilperson's conclusion.

I hope that clears things up for you both!