Top Law Schools

I am not sure how much I can share w/o violating the copyright policy so if this isn't kosher I'll pull it:

The conclusion: Colored paper is preferable [to paint] because it readily permits a repeated use of exactly the same color in different compositions, which allows for a precise comparison of that color's impact in varying contexts.

It then goes on to talk about how paint isn't as precise in its color, so it isn't as good to show the color.

The mistaken answer - ie a non-required assumption - is that a slight difference in color between two pieces of paper is harder to see than a slight difference in paint.

The correct answer is that observing the impact of color across different contexts helps students learn about color.

I can see how the correct answer is required (although I don't know if I could reproduce the logic) but as I see it, the mistaken answer would also be required because if the color variance in paper were easier to see than paint, then the paper wouldn't be the better choice because it wouldn't be as precise. What am I missing here? Any ideas?

Thanks much.

In the prompt, they reason that the preference of using colored paper is that its color of it is more consistent, allowing you to better observe the effects of different contexts. Changing lighting conditions is just altering the context of viewing the paper which is part of the reason they want to use the same color paper. So the fact that the "apparent" color of the paper changes more with different lighting is irrelevant because it's the actual color that we are concerned about. Hope I explained that well enough.

Hi! I took the LSAT in June so my test mode may a bit rusty, but I'm going to try my hand at this anyway.

This is a necessary assumption question, which means we can use the Negation Technique. The correct answer, when negated, will just destroy the argument. If not contradict the argument outright, it will definitely leave a reader feeling baffled at the end.

With that in mind, [D] is the correct answer because the argument rests upon the logic that a precise comparison of a color’s impact in varying contexts helps one to learn the use of color. If you negate [D], it says that this need not help and that would be a slap in the face of the argument.

is not that effective when negated. Its comparative aspect (more difficult to notice) means that a negation will still be fudgy, which should be a warning sign for you. In necessary assumption questions, don't judge an answer choice by how it reads as written. Judge it by how it reads when negated: it must be clear and forceful.

Hope that helps! (If I said something wrong, please tear me apart in replies TLS.)