PT 18 (December 1992) Section 2 - #21

forps
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:35 pm

PT 18 (December 1992) Section 2 - #21

Postby forps » Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:25 pm

I quite don't get this question. How does (A) strenghtens the position that the traditional attribution of a disputed painting should not have special weight?

Disputed paintings: Those without a signature or with a questionably authentic signature.

Any help is appreciated.

Manhattan LSAT Noah
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

Re: PT 18 (December 1992) Section 2 - #21

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:12 pm

Perhaps this discussion will help

forps
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: PT 18 (December 1992) Section 2 - #21

Postby forps » Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:35 pm

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:Perhaps this discussion will help


Thanks for the help.

I fully understood the question now.

Thanks again!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, big_willy_style_333, cctv, usaorbust and 10 guests