#24 - Nightbird is an unsigned painting that some attribute

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—SN. The correct answer choice is (C)

A guiding principle on the LSAT is that we do not attack the premises offered in support of the conclusion, because doing so typically requires the application of some outside knowledge, which is not permitted. This question offers an interesting situation in which an apparently factual premise is not quite what it seems.

The stimulus describes a unsigned painting named Nightbird that some attribute to a celebrated artist named Larocque. The experts agree that Nightbird was painted in a style indistinguishable from that of Larocque, and that if Nightbird was not painted by Larocque, it was undoubtedly painted by one of his students. A recent analysis showed that the painting contains orpiment, a pigment never yet found in a work attributed to Larocque. Based on this new evidence, the stimulus author concludes that the painting must have been done by one of Larocque’s students.

What is very interesting about the premises regarding the experts’ agreement is that there are two layers to them. The fact presented is that they agree. However this does not mean it is established that the experts are correct. So, while the experts agree that the style is indistinguishable from that of Larocque, it may not be. And, it may not be true that if the painting was not done by Larocque, then it must have been done by one of his students.

The evidence relied on is that the recent analysis showed the painting contains orpiment, a pigment never yet found in a work attributed to Larocque. This qualification, that orpiment has not yet been found in a work attributed to Larocque, introduces the possibility that there may be some Larocque painting containing orpiment that has not yet been found. Instead, the stimulus author treats the recently discovered evidence, that the painting contains orpiment, as proving that Larocque did not paint Nightbird .

Also, the only reason given for the view that if Larocque did not paint Nightbird , then one of his students must have, is that the style is indistinguishable from Larocque’s. However, while the style may be indistinguishable, there is no evidence to support the view that it can be produced only by Larocque or one of his students.

The question stem identifies this as a Weaken question. Your prephrase is that the correct answer choice will exploit these assumptions made by the argument.

Answer choice (A): This choice strengthens the conclusion, by affirming that Larocque had students who painted in his style. Notice that the stimulus did not present as fact that these students even existed. Rather, all you were told in the stimulus was the opinion of the experts.

Answer choice (B): The fact that Larocque never signed his paintings does not give us any reason to doubt that Nightbird was painted by one of Larocque’s students.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This choice undermines the conclusion by presenting the possibility that, just like Larocque, none of Larocque’s students are known to have used orpiment either.

Answer choice (D): This choice is incorrect, because nothing in the stimulus suggests the relative importance of the artists is material to the conclusion.

Answer choice (E): This choice has no effect on the conclusion, because the relative popularity of the pigment is not material to the conclusion. That the pigment later became “more popular” does not provide sufficient information regarding the usage of orpiment during Larocque’s life to affect the conclusion.

[jenna_d]

The difference between answer A and C really confuses me - they really seem to be stating the same idea. In A, it is essentially saying that since Larocque didn't use orpiment, then his students did not. In C, it is saying that no painting of one of Larocque's students has ever contained orpiment. Isn't that saying the same thing? Confused on how to distinguish between the two and choose the correct one.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

I guess it depends, jenna_d, on whether you consider the use of a certain pigment to be a "painting technique". It didn't occur to me to do so, so I viewed answer A as strengthening the claim that a student painted it, since " it was painted in a style indistinguishable from that of Larocque." That sounds to me more like we are talking about technique than the use of the pigment suggests.

However, if we do view the choice of a pigment to be a technique, then answer C would still weaken more than answer A, because answer A only tells us about few of his students while answer C tells us about none of their known paintings. Answer A allows for the possibility that some did use different techniques, including that pigment, while answer C tells us about every single painting that we know about that was done by one of his students. That's much stronger evidence that our author may be wrong, and since the stem asks us to pick the one that weakens the most, pick the one that weakens the most!

Few vs none - an important difference, and every word matters on this test.

I hope that sheds some light on this one for you!

[glasann]

When I read the stimulus I was actually expecting this to be a flaw question, not a weaken, and then was surprised to see this question stem. I thought that the conclusion erroneously made the conclusion that a lack of evidence proves something to be false, i.e. lack of evidence that Larocque used this pigment to mean that he certainly would not have and therefore one of his students must.

Isn't answer C making the same mistake? Just because we haven't found any paintings doesn't necessarily mean that none of them used it.

Or is it ok simply because it is a weaken question and all we have to do is shed some amount of doubt on this? And the lack of evidence does weaken the conclusion even if it doesn't entirely disprove it

[lsatstudying11]

Hi!

I can see how C is a better answer than B, but couldn't an argument be made that since the artist never signed any of his paintings, the fact that Nightbird was unsigned is nothing out of the ordinary? Or, in other words, the fact that this painting was not signed cannot any longer be a source of confusion or wonder?

At the same time, does the fact that the painting was unsigned even factor into the argument? Is that just background information while the real premises relate to the pigment? Thanks so much for your help!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi lsatstudying11!

The fact that the painting was unsigned sets up the mystery as to who exactly painted it, but it is not a premise upon which the conclusion (that the painting must have been painted by one of Larocque's students) relies. Even if Larocque did not sign any of his paintings, we still wouldn't be certain as to who painted this painting because it being unsigned would not be enough to prove the it was Larocque and not one of his students (or someone else altogether). It seems to me that Larocque never signing any of his paintings just makes correct attributions of all of his paintings confusing and uncertain, rather than making correct attribution of this specific painting any less confusing.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[flexbubbleboi]

I also struggled to choose between C and A. I picked A, but saw the two answers as equally weakening, and could use some help figuring out how to decide between them!

Like an earlier poster, I thought using a particular pigment would be a "painting technique," so I didn't rule out A on those grounds.

I can see why "few" in A is not as strong as "no painting" in C, but my problem was that it says "No painting *currently recognized*" -- doesn't that mean that his students could have used that pigment, and no one has noticed yet? How do I decide to ignore that problem with answer C and pick it over answer A, when neither seems very strong?

[Robert Carroll]

flex,

Is using a pigment a technique? I don't know. So let's assume it is. If it's not, then answer choice (A) completely fails. So assume using a certain kind of pigment counts as a technique. Well, few of Larocque's students differed from him in technique respects, so few of them would have used orpiment. He didn't use it at all. So the odds are 0% that Larocque painted Nightbird. The problem is, although few (so not many) of his students used it, some may have. So the odds are likely to be above 0% that one of his students painted it. And, of course, the odds that someone not one of his students painted it would take up the remaining probability. So what ARE the odds his students painted it? What about if no one else, or few other people, ever used orpiment either? Then answer choice (A) is quite consistent with the conclusion. I'm not saying it helps - I'm saying it doesn't alter the probability of his students' having painted it in any way, because I can equally make the case that it increases, decreases, or leaves unchanged those odds.

As far as answer choice (C), of course nothing currently recognized, and painted by his students, contains orpiment. So now Larocque and his students equally never used orpiment, at least that we know. Then the argument that Larocque didn't paint Nightbirds (because he is not known to use orpiment) applies equally to his students (they aren't known to use it either). While it doesn't prove anything, it removes any reason for thinking his students painted Nightbird. We now have a total absence of evidence, and all the force of evidence that orpiment does to make it less likely Larocque painted Nightbirds now makes it just as unlikely his students did.

Robert Carroll

[flexbubbleboi]

Thank you, Robert! That distinction in terms of probability really helps.