LSAT PrepTest 42 Section 4 Question 17 Explanation | Logical Reasoning

I didn't write the following blog post. It was already on the blog when I took over the URL. The following blog post may contain mistakes. -Steve

***


This is a Logical Reasoning question from the December 2003 LSAT.

Let's make a chain of phrases. You won't have to write these out on the actual exam.

20th century works only --> on loan or permanent --> all permanents are in store --> some non-permanents in store

Too many things might have to be true based on these statements, so we won't pre-phrase. Let's just right into the choices:

A) Out of scope. The question never says all the prints in the store are of a painting in the museum. It just says everything in the permanent collection is in the store, and some things that aren't in that collection are also. This allows for the possibility that some prints are of paintings that have never been in the museum at all, on loan or permanently.

B) Wrong for the same reason as A. Every painting in the museum is 20th century, but maybe the store has some prints not in the museum. These prints might be of paintings from another century.

C) Correct. The argument says every painting in the museum is either permanent or on loan. Therefore, if it's not on loan, it's permanent. The argument says everything permanent has a print in the store, so this choice is correct.

D) Out of scope. This may or may not be true, but the argument never indicates either way. It simply says it's not part of the museum's permanent collection. It could be a 20th century piece on loan or a 14th century piece that's never been at the museum. We don't know, so this choice needn't be true as a result of the argument.

E) Wrong for the same reason as D. We don't know because the argument never addresses this.

Remember:

1) Use a chain of phrases (done in your head or by underlining on the real test, but written-out here for instruction's sake) to find the argument's key points and understand its progression.

2) Ditch choices that are out of scope. If the argument doesn't address the question, it certainly doesn't have to be true as a result of the argument.