PT 14, Sec 2, #22 LR about van Gogh (why correct?)

MagnumLifeStyle
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:53 pm

PT 14, Sec 2, #22 LR about van Gogh (why correct?)

Postby MagnumLifeStyle » Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:37 pm

I had narrowed the answer choices to A and D.

I thought D was wrong because the passage does provide evidence that the painting might be an uncataloged van Gogh rather one painted by someone else (how experts agree that van Gogh's later paintings show such broad brushstrokes and distinctive combinations of colors).

So I wonder why D is the correct answer. Van Gogh's brush strokes were releatively unique, and the subject matter of the unknown painting also corressponds with that frequently painted by van Gogh, so I think the passage provides ample evidence that the painting is an unknown van Gogh catalogue.

I though answer choice A better describes the flaw of the argument. Just because experts agree that several attributes of the unknown painting correspond to van Gogh's later works doesn't mean that it's a van Gogh painting, hence answer choice A, which states that the gallery owner ignores how general agreement can be wrong sometimes.

Any thoughts on this?!!! Thanks =)

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 14, Sec 2, #22 LR about van Gogh (why correct?)

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:53 pm

I think you're right between the two answer choices they expect you to be really interested in. The argument gives us several reasons why this work could be attributed to Van Gogh and then goes on to conclude that it actually is a Van Gogh.

Hmmm. I don't believe it.

We're asked to find an answer that describes a flaw committed in the argument.

(A) is really close but here's why it's wrong. In order for this to be the correct answer, it would need to say in the stimulus that there is general agreement that this painting is a Van Gogh, therefore this painting must be a Van Gogh. However, the general agreement is only that Van Gogh used broad brush strokes later in his career.
(B) is the opposite. The argument clearly cites expert authority in making the case.
(C) is way out of scope. Nowhere is it assumed that there couldn't be another reason for acquiring a painting.
(D) describes in it's own way that the evidence only allows one to conclude that it could be a Van Gogh, because the evidence is also consistent with the possibility that it was painted by someone in the style of Van Gogh.
(E) has roots in the stimulus but they're twisted around a bit in the answer choice. We don't know that the gallery owner doesn't actually believe that the work is a Van Gogh. It's not established that the gallery owner is acting out of simple self interest.

Hope this helps!

MagnumLifeStyle
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:53 pm

Re: PT 14, Sec 2, #22 LR about van Gogh (why correct?)

Postby MagnumLifeStyle » Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:22 pm

Matt,

Thanks for taking time to answer my question.

You write that "However, the general agreement is only that Van Gogh used broad brush strokes later in his career."

But the gallery owner writes that the "experts agree that in his later paintings van Gogh invariably used just such broad brushstrokes and distinctive combinations of colors as we find here."

In other words, the experts agree that the unknown painting was painted in a way that van Gogh painted later in his life.
The gallery owner (another expert) also claims that the "subject" of the unknown painting is "one he [van Gogh] painted often."

So two experts agree on two things regarding the unknown painting:
1. Its subject matter is one that van Gogh frequently painted.
2. Its artistic style (brushstrokes, combination of color) without exception ("invariably") matches that of van Gogh's later paintings.

Thus, there is GENERAL AGREEMENT that the unknown painting is van Gogh's late painting.

But this GENERAL AGREEMENT is precisely the FLAW of the reasoning, because another painter could have simply imitated van Gogh (including the subject matter and artistic style).

Thus, the answer choice A, which states that the gallery owner "ignores the fact that there can be general agreement that something is the case without its being the case" is a better answer choice than answer choice D. which simply claims that the owner failed to provide evidence that the unknown painting is more of an uncataloged van Gogh than an imitation.

But the official answer is D. What are your thoughts on this?

Audio Technica Guy
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: PT 14, Sec 2, #22 LR about van Gogh (why correct?)

Postby Audio Technica Guy » Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:36 pm

MagnumLifeStyle wrote:
So two experts agree on two things regarding the unknown painting:
1. Its subject matter is one that van Gogh frequently painted.
2. Its artistic style (brushstrokes, combination of color) without exception ("invariably") matches that of van Gogh's later paintings.

Thus, there is GENERAL AGREEMENT that the unknown painting is van Gogh's late painting.

But this GENERAL AGREEMENT is precisely the FLAW of the reasoning, because another painter could have simply imitated van Gogh (including the subject matter and artistic style).


The argument supports that there is agreement that it is in the distinctive style of Van Gogh, not that it was done by Van Gogh. Those are two different things. The flaw isn't trusting the agreement, its trusting that if a painting is agreed to be almost exactly like a van gogh painting, that it is a van gogh painting.

There is NO "General Agreement that the unknown painting is Van Gogh's late paining."

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 14, Sec 2, #22 LR about van Gogh (why correct?)

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Wed Jun 30, 2010 2:11 pm

I agree with Audio Technica Guy.

In order to for the flaw to be "appeal to an opinion" which is what answer choice (A) says, the argument would need to read "because so and so said ____________ , ____________ must be true."

The agreement is about what Van Gogh's work looked like in his later years. Those experts are saying nothing about the particular work in the gallery.

MagnumLifeStyle
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:53 pm

Re: PT 14, Sec 2, #22 LR about van Gogh (why correct?)

Postby MagnumLifeStyle » Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:36 pm

Thanks Audio Technica Guy and Matt from Atlas.
I can now understand my faulty reasoning.
I'll watch out for that format of "because so and so said___, ____ must be true."




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chipotle85, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 10 guests