Top Law Schools

This is the question about Van Gogh and the gallery owner. I selected the wrong answer but cannot understand why it was incorrect. Manhattan LSAT's explanation seems plausible but doesn't really address why I think my answer choice was wrong. I'm not saying there was a printing error or anything, just hoping for an alternate explanation.

So I chose (A) because I thought the evidence the gallery owner provided was hinged upon the agreement of "experts" (some, all, not clear). I thought it would be possible for the experts to be wrong about the brush strokes, colors, etc. Isn't the only way to be 100% certain to ask the painter himself? Even then, he could lie. So, (A).

But the correct answer was (D). The gallery owner provides no evidence that someone else didn't paint the painting. Except he did. It was just shitty evidence.

So I guess I'm stuck on the brush strokes, colors, etc. mentioned by the gallery owner as not counting as evidence that Van Gogh authored the painting.

tapenade wrote:So I chose (A) because I thought the evidence the gallery owner provided was hinged upon the agreement of "experts" (some, all, not clear). I thought it would be possible for the experts to be wrong about the brush strokes, colors, etc. Isn't the only way to be 100% certain to ask the painter himself? Even then, he could lie. So, (A).

By that logic, we'd never be certain of anything! Which we shouldn't be. But check out what you say there - "100% certain" - and compare that to the conclusion - "virtually certain".

A few issues surround (A). First, as Matt said on the Manhattan forums (other Matt), the expert agreement is over the brushstrokes/colors, not the origination. On top of that, we're told that there's expert agreement (the body of experts say this is true), not general agreement (the population as a whole says this is true). And, as far as expert testimony goes, on the LSAT, we generally accept what experts say when they're talking in their area of expertise unless the argument gives us reason to question that. There's no such reason here. On top of that, the conclusion is that it's virtually certain that this a van Gogh, not that it is certain. So when (A) says it ignores this possibility, we can't say that it does, as maybe that's why he's included the qualifying "virtually" in the conclusion.

But the correct answer was (D). The gallery owner provides no evidence that someone else didn't paint the painting. Except he did. It was just shitty evidence.

That's an incorrect paraphrasing of (D), which is where the issue might be!

(D) doesn't say that he provides no evidence someone else didn't paint the painting; it says that there's no evidence what the likelihood of that is compared to the likelihood of van Gogh painting it. Looking at a painting that is in van Gogh's style, there are two possibilities - it's a van Gogh, or it's by someone who painted at least this one painting like van Gogh (and those are the only two possibilities). The author says that the former possibility is a virtual certainty; he provides no evidence why we should go with that one. And that's what (D) is telling us - there's no discussion of that other possibility, and whether it's likely or not.

If we add in the statement, "However, there were a large number of painters contemporary to van Gogh who painted similar subjects using similar colors and brushstrokes," then our conclusion isn't looking so good.

If we add in the statement, "This combination of color, brushstroke, and subject is unique to van Gogh, as no other painter is skilled enough to combine those elements" then we're feeling better about it.

-Note to mods-
Sorry, posted without realizing I hadn't changed my avatar. My avatar is removed now, but it won't let me delete this post, and the update to my profile didn't change the avatar here.

Thank you for the reply! Makes a lot more sense now.

A different consistency among claims issue occurs in 60.lr1.15. The choice B for this question doesn't say "she saved at least as much on her water bills as the manufacturers' claims suggested." Doesn't that make B wrong? I ended up choosing A precisely because of this issue with choice B. Why isn't C can a good choice as if the manufacturers' claims are inconsistent with each other then that would destroy the case that those claims are exaggerated? so C appears to be a flaw.

57.lr2.16: Any reason why the credited choice has causation when the stim only states correlation between technological changes and pace of life. BP prep I think sees these as principle-strengthen questions but there is no gap in the stim that seems strengthened by the principle here. Manhattan imo sees them differently in that the principle doesn't need to strengthen any gap in the stim.