Q11

[LSAT-Chang]

I am quite confused about the correct answer to this question which is (B) because in the passage, Vermeer asserts that the forgery made by Meegeren is not artistically great because it lacks the historical significance. I thought what he meant by "historical significance" was when someone brings up something in "new light" which is supported in lines 41-46. But answer choice (B) is referring to "historical circumstances SURROUNDING the creation of the work" it sounds as if it is talking about political/social circumstances -- but Lessing uses the word more in terms of how that "new" or "innovative" idea is itself the "historical significance" not something else -- does this make sense at all? I chose (E) for the above reasons.

[noah]

(E) is tempting here, indeed.

We're asked to infer Lessing's view. We find his views outlined in paragaph 3.

(A) is out of scope - the passage is about the value of forgeries, not how many are out there! Come on, LSAT, you can do better than that.

(B) is supported by lines 27-46, where we learn that Vermeer is acclaimed because he pioneered a new technique. This answer is confusing, since "historical circumstances" is often used to refer to what war or political issues were at play at the time, but more broadly we can use this in this context to refer to what other artists were doing at the time, and previously.

(C) is unsupported. There's no discussion of evaluating art by its level of influence upon other artists - it's about the level of innovation, which can be not influential.

(D) is out of scope.

(E) is tempting! But, it's a bit much to say that an artist who uses someone else's techniques isn't innovative. Perhaps you use some of these borrowed techniques, but add in your own flair. Furthermore, Lessing never says how to evaluate whether someone is innovative. We just learn that innovation is a quality that should be considered in evaluating whether someone's work is artistic.

[myradin]

Can you please explain why D is out of scope?

[noah]

Can you please explain why D is out of scope?

Do you see any discussion of standards for forgery changing over time?

(Sorry for the long silence - a bunch of e-mail alerts slipped through!)

[zainrizvi]

(E) is tempting here, indeed.

We're asked to infer Lessing's view. We find his views outlined in paragaph 3.

(A) is out of scope - the passage is about the value of forgeries, not how many are out there! Come on, LSAT, you can do better than that.

(B) is supported by lines 27-46, where we learn that Vermeer is acclaimed because he pioneered a new technique. This answer is confusing, since "historical circumstances" is often used to refer to what war or political issues were at play at the time, but more broadly we can use this in this context to refer to what other artists were doing at the time, and previously.

(C) is unsupported. There's no discussion of evaluating art by its level of influence upon other artists - it's about the level of innovation, which can be not influential.

(D) is out of scope.

(E) is tempting! But, it's a bit much to say that an artist who uses someone else's techniques isn't innovative. Perhaps you use some of these borrowed techniques, but add in your own flair. Furthermore, Lessing never says how to evaluate whether someone is innovative. We just learn that innovation is a quality that should be considered in evaluating whether someone's work is artistic.

Is the last paragraph still talking about Lessing's views?

Isn't the reasoning there that the painting is NOT innovative (i.e. doesn't present anything new or creative) because it was already done from before. Doesn't this give reason to suggest (E)?

Lessing never SAYS how to evaluate something, but he does it implicitly in judging the work...

I think the reason I'm confused is because there's many times where you actively have to look at not what just the author says, but also what the author does in terms of reasoning. But in this case, I guess the "says" trumps the "does"?

[noah]

Is the last paragraph still talking about Lessing's views?

Isn't the reasoning there that the painting is NOT innovative (i.e. doesn't present anything new or creative) because it was already done from before. Doesn't this give reason to suggest (E)?

Lessing never SAYS how to evaluate something, but he does it implicitly in judging the work...

I think the reason I'm confused is because there's many times where you actively have to look at not what just the author says, but also what the author does in terms of reasoning. But in this case, I guess the "says" trumps the "does"?

Interesting.

I'd say that the last paragraph is actually the author applying Lessing's point of view. Regardless, I think it also does support (B) -- we see Lessing's point of view used with a reference to "historical significance."

Even if we were to grant that Lessing is "underneath" the last paragraph, I don't see it supporting the idea that using someone else's technique makes an artist not innovative. I imagine that Lessing accepts that we can use some techniques of others and then perhaps mix those techniques in a new way/add in something different (like neon orange).

What do you think?

[jones.mchandler]

I am quite confused about the correct answer to this question which is (B) because in the passage, Vermeer asserts that the forgery made by Meegeren is not artistically great because it lacks the historical significance. I thought what he meant by "historical significance" was when someone brings up something in "new light" which is supported in lines 41-46. But answer choice (B) is referring to "historical circumstances SURROUNDING the creation of the work" it sounds as if it is talking about political/social circumstances -- but Lessing uses the word more in terms of how that "new" or "innovative" idea is itself the "historical significance" not something else -- does this make sense at all? I chose (E) for the above reasons.

I thought the exact same thing--that "circumstance" was wayyy too loose of a word for how Lessing's views were described in the passage. I thought circumstance kind of implied out of one's control, random, something along those lines. So I looked up the definition of the word circumstance and the definition actually is stronger--"a fact or condition connected with or relevant to an event or action." That seems to imply at least some intention some of the time, which makes that AC strong enough to be justified as an inference from Lessing's views.

[Mab6q]

Beware of extreme language on RC, which is what E gives us.

[dhlim3]

I, too, was thrown off by the term "circumstance". I for sure thought that this was one of the subtle traps thrown in by the LSAC, and confidently picked E.

[rpak]

Could someone explain again why B is correct? I read the explanations above, but if I was taking this in real-time, I'm not sure how I would be able to correctly identify "historical circumstances" as the artistic techniques developed by Vermeer, as mentioned in lines 27-46.

I could see why B is right, but if this were under the pressure of the real test, I would probably choose E again (my original choice).

[JohnZ880]

Not much you can do about this question. If you thought historical circumstance(s) =/= historical significance/"historical achievement," then you of course would have immediately eliminated (B), as I did. I thought (E) was extreme, so went with (C), which I didn't feel good about, but then again I thought was better than the others. I really hate when the LSAT plays on a linguistic ambiguity. I don't think it tests anything of significance.

[KingKai]

E is wrong because Lessing only says that if something is new, it is innovative. He doesn't define what makes something not innovative. As someone said earlier, consider the color Neon Green. Let's just say Neon Green was created in the year 2020. But the color Green was created in 2010. Neon Green is still innovative because it's new. But its foundation is still the previous discovered color Green. Answer E is basically saying that any use of something previously created/innovated, i.e. Green or Vermeer's inaugurations (see bottom of Paragraph 3), makes your creation not innovative. That is too strong. That goes beyond what Lessing said. Basically, Lessing says it's only not innovative if you used something else and you don't create something new. Thus, in the year 2021 if Super-Neon Green is created, and it is different than Neon Green, Lessing would not have a problem with saying it is innovative. To give one final thing to consider, imagine that in order to be "innovative" something must have absolutely zero use of something else. That's basically like saying you have to go and discover a new element or raw material in order to have created something new. Do you know how impossible it would then be to create or call something an "innovation?" Is Lessing coming off as that strict in his stipulations? No.