Top Law Schools

This is an LR Question from PT67 about linguists and art critics.

Why is C incorrect?

C doesn't really describe what's going on on the passage. To paraphrase C, it's saying "If these two contentious groups can agree that there are paintings that aren't art, then it must be true.

But the passage isn't concerned at all with the truth of THAT claim. Instead, it uses that claim as support for the argument's conclusion that the critics aren't really disagreeing about "what is art".

I'm still having trouble here, and it concerns the word "its."

To me it refers to the argument's truth. The argument is the sum of premises and conclusion, so it should mean because two groups of critics agree that some paintings are not art it is true that they do not disagree over the meaning of art. This seems like a match.

Does the LSAT commonly talk about the "truth" of an argument, or is "truth" usually reserved for describing a conclusion?

The way you're interpreting "C" (and I think it's a perfectly reasonable interpretation), it says the same thing as "E", but "E" says it more clearly, with less ambiguity. If "E" weren't there, I would definitely bite off on "C", though.

I think you have it right here. They are drawing a distinction between argument and conclusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument).

This was a toughie because I got it right the first time, but on review I missed it and couldn't remember my reason for eliminating C.