#10- Parallel

[bli2016]

Hi, I chose E and I still don't know why C is a better answer. In the first paragraph, I thought the author was emphasizing how the art critics praised van Meegeren's painting because they thought it was painted by Vermeer. This led me to look for an answer choice that reflected how a certain group of people viewed something favorably just because they thought it originated from someone famous. I narrowed the answer choices down to C and E, but because of lines 14-16, I chose E, due to the fact that some art critics were still insisting that the painting was done by Vermeer, thereby implying that they still viewed the painting favorably (answer choice C implies that the diners did not praise the food after they found out the master chef was away). Could someone clarify why E is not the correct answer choice here? Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, bli2016, and sorry we took so long to reply. In this question, the author's gave us a very specific line reference - we are supposed to look at the critics mentioned in line 13. Those are the critics that were embarrassed in 1945 to discover that the painting they had so admired was in fact a forgery. The implication is that they then took the painting down (because it hung "until" 1945). That's the relationship we want to mirror in our answer - a group of people that discover that something is not what they thought it was, and change their view of what they had previously admired.

The critic who did not change his mind is mentioned in line 14, so that's not who we want to compare to in our answer. One additional clue that that's the wrong critic is that the question refers to critics, plural, not critic, singular.

Answer E has nobody discovering anything to be other than what they thought, and nobody changes their mind. They liked something for some reason, and that doesn't change.

Answer C has folks praising the food until they discover that it wasn't prepared by the master chef. The implication of "until" is that they then stopped praising it, changing their opinion of it because of this new information. That's the closest match to our embarrassed critics.

I hope that helps!

[mN2mmvf]

Hi Adam,

Wouldn't your logic also allow (D) as a possibility then? The critics applauded a novel *until* they found out that the author intended some unsavory ideas, and then, out of embarrassment, stopped applauding it?

[nicholaspavic]

Hi mN2,

I am not sure that the rationale would go that far. This parallel question demands that we abstract not only that critics "like" something until they find out that the thing is not what it is. It also adds an extra abstraction which the Test of Abstraction would knock out in Answer Option (D).

Note how Adam notes that "that it wasn't prepared by the master chef." That's the extra step that is not found in Answer Option (D). Namely, that the creation produced was not made by the person whom we thought made it. In (D), we are told that the writer did in fact, make the symbols, but just that the symbols weren't what the critics thought they were. This does not match the abstract principle offered, that the critics stopped liking the painting once they found out that Vermeer didn't paint it. Remember, with the parallel sitautions you will often be asked to parallel at least 2 if not several steps in logic. That will define the better student of the LSAT and the most often the right answer.

Thanks for the great question!

[mN2mmvf]

Makes sense. Thanks!