Q5 - During the 1980's, Japanese collectors

[aebq196234]

can some explain this question?

[tommywallach]

Hey Aebq,

First off, just a word on using the forums. We're always happy to explain a question from top to bottom (as I'm about to do!), but for your own sake, try to write a longer post in which you explain what your process was, what answers you found interesting, and why you eventually chose the one you did. That way, we can give advice on process--which is more easily generalizable to other questions--and not just content.

Okay, this is a strengthen question, meaning it's part of the assumption family of questions. To start these, always identify the core (premise --> conclusion).

Conclusion: The reason J.C.'s bought 19th century Imp. paintings is they liked certain aesthetic attributes of those paintings

Premise: J.C.'s bought a lot of 19th century Imp. paintings


At this point, it's often worth thinking about what the assumption is. Clearly, this argument assumes the reason that the J.C.'s bought the paintings, but they have no idea why. For example, maybe it wasn't that they liked the aesthetics, but that they figured those paintings would appreciate more quickly than other paintings, or maybe it became a status symbol amongst the wealthy to have such paintings.

To strengthen the assumption, we need more evidence that they actually liked the aesthetics, or else evidence disproving other possible reasons they'd buy the paintings.

A) We don't care about art collectors in Europe.

B) This actually weakens the argument, because it provides another reason J.C.'s bought those paintings--they just had a lot more money and didn't know what to do with it!

C) This connects up the purchasing of paintings to aesthetic attributes--"visual effects found in Japanese prints that are highly esteemed in Japan". If people liked the aesthetics of Japanese prints, and these painters adopted those effects, it would definitely explain why those paintings would sell well. Correct answer!

D) This weakens the argument by supporting another explanation for why these paintings were selling so well (similar to the assumption I came up with earlier!).

E) Again, we don't care about non-Japanese collectors, nor do we care about twentieth-century artists.

Always focus in on the core and the assumption when answering any assumption family (assumption, flaw, principle, strengthen/weaken) question. Let me know if that makes sense.

Thanks!

-t

[aebq196234]

that was very helpful, thank you. I was focused on aesthetics and i did't see it worded this exact way in the answer choices and panicked and picked something stupid the first time through. I think when dealing with this stuff it's important to translate what things mean in relation to the stimulus and that is a hard thing to remember to do. Again, thanks.

[WaltGrace1983]

B) This actually weakens the argument, because it provides another reason J.C.'s bought those paintings--they just had a lot more money and didn't know what to do with it!


D) This weakens the argument by supporting another explanation for why these paintings were selling so well (similar to the assumption I came up with earlier!).

Question - how do you know when something provides/doesn't provide an alternate cause? Wouldn't (B) and (D) require another assumption on top of just the answer choice that the economy had an effect on art buying or that the prices had an effect on art buying?

[christine.defenbaugh]

As always, you raise an interesting question WaltGrace1983!

I'll give you two answers:

Practical/Strategic Answer

When you are looking for a strengthen answer, the difference between wrong answers that weaken, and wrong answers that are irrelevant is best discussed over wine, late at night, alongside some esoteric philosophical concepts.

In other words, far away from the actual LSAT. And I say that not just because the answer to the question doesn't affect your TASK, though that's true. It's also because the writers of the LSAT likely did not spend a great deal of time categorizing the incorrect answers specifically as either weaken or irrelevant.

The LSAT is an extremely carefully written exam, and the writers of it will make absolutely certain that the line between the correct strengthener and an irrelevant answer is clearly defined. But they aren't likely to take that care between incorrect irrelevant answers and incorrect weaken answers - why would they? As a result, a wrong answer to a strengthen question might easily debatably be either irrelevant or weakening.

Language is not in and of itself precise - the language of the LSAT only falls into precise patterns and structure because the writers have made it so.


Now, I'll go ahead and give you another answer, because I like wine, late nights, and esoteric philosophical debates.

(B) tells us they had money coming out their ears, but it doesn't give a real hint for a reason why they chose to spend it on Impressionist paintings rather than something else. It seems just as likely that the newfound cash was able to finance their aesthetic preferences as it was to fund an entirely random series of purchases.

So, I'll agree with you that (B) can't weaken this all by it's lonesome.

(D) is actually a little more interesting. First, this answer actually only gives us information about the 1960's and 1970's. If I were being a bit flippant, I might dismiss it out of hand for that alone. You can take this two different directions: either you can assume that those pricing trends continued into the 1980's or that they reversed. Now, one could argue that high prices provides an alternate explanation for the buying (because status), but one could also argue that low prices would provide an alternative explanation for the buying (because traditional demand).

So, we don't actually know whether prices for Impressionist paintings were higher or lower in the 1980s, and we could make an argument for both strengthening AND weakening the argument whichever way it went!

This is a giant mess of tons of different possibilities!

I'd argue that these are both irrelevant incorrect answers, but I can see arguments for the other side. Fortunately, we aren't actually required to make the distinction!

[WaltGrace1983]

So, we don't actually know whether prices for Impressionist paintings were higher or lower in the 1980s, and we could make an argument for both strengthening AND weakening the argument whichever way it went!

Thanks for the insight! So I guess I will continue to think about it like this...

If something is not strengthening unless we make an unreasonable assumption, then it doesn't strengthen at all. Such an example of a reasonable assumption would be when the argument talks about a certain food being healthy and the answer choice talks about a certain benefit of the food like lower blood pressure - we are of course assuming that lower blood pressure is healthy).

Answers that could strengthen or weaken depending on evidence not provided by the argument (our own assumption) are wrong

Answers that are wrong don't need to be categorized so cleanly

Sound about right.