samuelfbaron
Thanks Received: 6
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 71
Joined: September 14th, 2012
 
 
 

Q1 - Curator: Critics have rightly claimed

by samuelfbaron Sun May 26, 2013 1:40 pm

Statement 1 --> Critics claimed removing grime expose painting to human breath, poses a risk to these paintings.

Statement 2 --> Frescoes in present condition cannot be seen as they originally were in Mico's day.

Conclusion --> Therefore, Restoration should continue.

(C) Successfully links the two statements together and provides a guiding principle or general rule which supports the conclusion that the restoration should continue.
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q1 - Curator: Critics have rightly claimed

by ohthatpatrick Mon May 27, 2013 7:46 pm

Nicely and succinctly put!

I love Principle Justify questions because the correct answer has to bridge the concepts from the premise and the conclusion, so you can evaluate each answer choice by saying "can I match half of this to the premise and half of this to the conclusion?"

With (C), "acceptable to risk future damage" matches "restoration should continue, even though it exposes the frescoes to acids" and "enable it to be appreciated in its original form" matches "in their present condition cannot be seen as they appeared when painted [originally]".

(A) no match for "aesthetic standards alone"

(B) we don't need a rule for whether or not something possesses aesthetic value; we need a rule for whether or not the restoration should continue.

(D) no match for "large amounts of money" or "large numbers of people"

(E) Closest match for the argument's buzzwords, other than (C). The problem is that (E) is a rule for deciding whether or not we can regard Michelangelo's grime-ridden frescoes as "the same work of art". But that's not the matter we're trying to decide in the conclusion. Again, we need a rule that tells us whether or not we should continue with this restoration that will get rid of grime but expose to acids.
 
samuelfbaron
Thanks Received: 6
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 71
Joined: September 14th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q1 - Curator: Critics have rightly claimed

by samuelfbaron Mon May 27, 2013 11:17 pm

Just to clarify - for Principle Support questions, the principle has to support the conclusion, right? We don't seek to draw a principle FROM the conclusion?

I think that is the rule...
 
kky215
Thanks Received: 1
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 13
Joined: August 06th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q1 - Curator: Critics have rightly claimed

by kky215 Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:52 pm

samuelfbaron Wrote:Just to clarify - for Principle Support questions, the principle has to support the conclusion, right? We don't seek to draw a principle FROM the conclusion?

I think that is the rule...


YES
Principle PROVE questions should be attacked by drawing the principle underlying in the original stimulus and then to be matched with the answer choices.

Principle SUPPORT questions should be attacked by linking the gap/ connecting the mismatch between the conclusion and the evidence. Thus, principle support questions are attacked in a similar way as assumption questions.
 
dis43
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 1
Joined: August 23rd, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q1 - Curator: Critics have rightly claimed

by dis43 Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:12 pm

Someone please help me...

very easy question but i thought for justify questions you need a sufficient condition that makes the conclusion true
this allows the conclusion to be true (it's a necessary assumption), but it doesn't MAKE the conclusion true
so i am confused why C is right...i chose it anyway because the other ones can't possibly make sense
there have been other justify questions where they give you a necessary condition like this and it's wrong

so the curator argues the restoration SHOULD continue
and (C) only says that is acceptable, not that it should happen
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q1 - Curator: Critics have rightly claimed

by ohthatpatrick Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:43 pm

Good call!

Principle Support questions don't HAVE to give us a Sufficient Assumption. We tend to expect that they will because most of them do.

But look at the question stem: it doesn't say "which principle makes the conclusion follow logically" (a la Sufficient Assumption). It just says "which principle most justifies the argument" (a la Strengthen).

So as you said, (C) does more to strengthen than anything else, so it's the correct answer.

This probably happens in about 5-10% of these questions, so don't be overly vigilant expecting a rule that locks in the conclusion. Certainly go into the question anticipating you'll probably see that, but always have a flexible thinking gear you can switch into when you see the test deviate from its usual tendencies.
 
ShiyuF391
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 12
Joined: November 19th, 2018
 
 
 

Re: Q1 - Curator: Critics have rightly claimed

by ShiyuF391 Sat Dec 15, 2018 3:56 am

ohthatpatrick Wrote:Good call!

Principle Support questions don't HAVE to give us a Sufficient Assumption. We tend to expect that they will because most of them do.

But look at the question stem: it doesn't say "which principle makes the conclusion follow logically" (a la Sufficient Assumption). It just says "which principle most justifies the argument" (a la Strengthen).

So as you said, (C) does more to strengthen than anything else, so it's the correct answer.

This probably happens in about 5-10% of these questions, so don't be overly vigilant expecting a rule that locks in the conclusion. Certainly go into the question anticipating you'll probably see that, but always have a flexible thinking gear you can switch into when you see the test deviate from its usual tendencies.




I understand why c is the correct answer but was confused by the wording "enable it to be appreciated in its original form".

In the question stem, the curator just states that that the painting "cannot be seen as they appeared when they were painted", but this doesn't seem to imply that he/she wants the restoration to completely fix the work to its original state.

To add on, it is nearly impossible to do that.

Does it mean that Principle Support question tends to generalize a bit more than the question stem?


Thx.
 
HughM388
Thanks Received: 2
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 54
Joined: July 05th, 2020
 
 
 

Re: Q1 - Curator: Critics have rightly claimed

by HughM388 Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:26 am

I'm afraid the principle being applied by the correct answer here does little to justify the conclusion, and to assuage our concerns about the survival of the frescoes for future generations.

Even if the frescoes cannot currently be viewed as they were originally in Michelangelo's day (if that's even possible, which I doubt), what will likely happen is that once the dirt and grime are removed there will be a period of about six months during which visibility of the frescoes will be improved, but after which the acidity in the air will begin irreparably damaging the frescoes, after which no one will be able to see them at all, ever again.

If the principle were, rather, that the edification and viewing pleasure of the limited number of people who will see the frescoes during that brief window of time between the removal of protective grime and the frescoes' irreparable destruction in fact justifies the aforementioned irreparable destruction, then, by all means, let the frescoes rot away!

Otherwise, there needs to be much more here for justification, for example that there's a type of air-filtration system that can and will effectively remove the harmful agents from the air, so that the frescoes can survive intact once they're denuded of the grime that's been serving to protect and preserve them these many years.

Lacking those elements, the conclusion and principle, as they are, remain woefully short-sighted and reckless, and would amount to misfeasance—and I daresay the charges brought against the person responsible for the destruction of such a priceless work of art would be rather grave. The Italians, like the French, take their artistic patrimony very seriously indeed.

Who are these LSAC test-writers? Haters of art? Anti-michelangelists (in other words da Vincians)? Or just typically ahistorical American tourists who believe that, once they've been to to see a work of art, it's no longer important?