#18 - If the recording now playing on the jazz program is

[GLMDYP]

Hi Powerscore!
I'm just wondering why (C) is right and (E) is not right.
Thanks!

[David Boyle]

Hi Powerscore!
I'm just wondering why (C) is right and (E) is not right.
Thanks!

Hello GLMDYP,

E leaves out anything about Lebrun, in the second sentence. A portrait could certainly be acrylic if it were not by Lebrun (or Leonardo da Vinci, or other old-timers). But in C, they confirm that "Since it is what it appears to be, the label is wrong", i.e., the picture is so old that it can't be a Frida Kahlo work, which mirrors the confirmation "the trumpeter was definitely Louis Armstrong" in the stimulus.
Hope that helps,

David

[al_godnessmary]

Hello -

Sadly, although I got the right answer, I still don't feel really confident on this question and I think I'm missing something basic and fundamental.

1989 LA playing after death —possible

Contrapositive: possible —LA playing after death —1989

Is that how I'm supposed to interpret the stimulus?

...and from there, well, how do you diagram C? And while we're there, how do you diagram B to show that it's not the same thing?

[Robert Carroll]

al,

There are really two things claimed about the recording - it's Louis Armstrong and it's from 1989. Thus:

(Louis Armstrong + 1989) Louis Armstrong was playing after his death

Because the necessary condition is impossible, we can infer the negation of the sufficient condition, via the contrapositive. That negated sufficient condition is:

Louis Armstrong or 1989

The author is certain it is Louis Armstrong, so the only possibility left in order to fulfill this "or" statement is that the date was wrong - 1989.

In answer choice (C), you see a similar pattern:

(Frida Kahlo + 17th century Japanese landscape) a 20th century Mexican artist painted in Japan in the 17th century

Because the necessary condition is impossible, either the landscape was not by Frida Kahlo, or it was not a 17th century Japanese landscape. The author says it was a 17th century Japanese landscape. So the attribution to Frida Kahlo is wrong.

Answer choice (B) does not allow us to conclude that the painting is mislabeled. Although it is impossible for a painting to be in two places at once, that doesn't allow us to infer which one is the fake.

Robert Carroll

[al_godnessmary]

Oooo, that makes it much easier to understand. Thanks Robert!

[PositiveThinker]

Really having trouble with this problem. Can someone help me explain why E is correct and each other choices are wrong, thank you

[Admin note: images of LSAT questions unfortunately cannot be publicly posted in an unprotected manner due to LSAC copyright restrictions. However, if you tell us the question number (whether from the homework location or PrepTest location, and topic, we can still help you just as easily! In this case, the question covers Louis Armstrong and jazz, and is from the October 1997 LSAT, LR2, #18, also found as question #243 in one of the problem sets.]

[David Boyle]

Really having trouble with this problem. Can someone help me explain why E is correct and each other choices are wrong, thank you

[Admin note: images of LSAT questions unfortunately cannot be publicly posted in an unprotected manner due to LSAC copyright restrictions. However, if you tell us the question number (whether from the homework location or PrepTest location, and topic, we can still help you just as easily! In this case, the question covers Louis Armstrong and jazz, and is from the October 1997 LSAT, LR2, #18, also found as question #243 in one of the problem sets.]

Hello PositiveThinker,

Actually, the correct answer is C. The stimulus is about the inaccurate dating of an artist by the time they lived in, versus a false attribution which puts them in a time they weren't alive. Answer C, saying that Frida Kahlo wasn't from the seventeenth century, is closest to the stimulus, which puts Louis Armstrong as being alive after his death.

Hope this helps,
David

[silent7706]

Hi,

I'm still not clear why (B) is wrong. It's clear that Morisot's La Toilette cannot be at two museums at the same time, so one of them must be mistitled. How is this conclusion flawed?

Thanks in advance.

[Brook Miscoski]

silent7706,

(C) is the strongest choice because the stimulus featured:
(a) an asserted artist, and lifespan
(b) a work, and when it is asserted to be made

The stimulus used a mismatch between those four factors to make a judgment. Answer choice (C) similarly uses a mismatch between those same categories to make a judgment.

(B) is different because there are not as many factors. There is simply a painting and its location, and unlike the stimulus there is no reason stated for the judgment (e.g. "I know that painting is in X museum).

[Coleman]

al,

There are really two things claimed about the recording - it's Louis Armstrong and it's from 1989. Thus:

(Louis Armstrong + 1989) Louis Armstrong was playing after his death

Because the necessary condition is impossible, we can infer the negation of the sufficient condition, via the contrapositive. That negated sufficient condition is:

Louis Armstrong or 1989

The author is certain it is Louis Armstrong, so the only possibility left in order to fulfill this "or" statement is that the date was wrong - 1989.

In answer choice (C), you see a similar pattern:

(Frida Kahlo + 17th century Japanese landscape) a 20th century Mexican artist painted in Japan in the 17th century

Because the necessary condition is impossible, either the landscape was not by Frida Kahlo, or it was not a 17th century Japanese landscape. The author says it was a 17th century Japanese landscape. So the attribution to Frida Kahlo is wrong.

Answer choice (B) does not allow us to conclude that the painting is mislabeled. Although it is impossible for a painting to be in two places at once, that doesn't allow us to infer which one is the fake.

Robert Carroll

Hi Robert,

I don't understand how the answer choice C is comparable to the reasoning displayed in the original passage. It is written in a very convoluted language so I'm not even sure what they are ultimately talking about.
The logic I can draw from the stimulus is, "concert in 1989" can't be true because LA died before 1989. This leaves us two possibilities whether (1) the label is wrong OR (2) the player is not LA. We can eliminate (2) so (1) becomes a conclusion.
However, I can't find any of this logic in answer choice C. Does "20C Mexican artist painted in Japan during the 17th C" serves something similar to "LA recorded in concert in 1989"? Are we required to look for the validity of this 20C Mexican artist painted in Japan during the 17th C based on the necessary conditions given in the statement?
Could you break down/ paraphrase the sentence in C so I can compare that with the stimulus? I'm completely lost here it just doesn't make sense.