Q21 - It is very difficult to

[yusangmin]

wtf is this stimulus saying?
wtf is attribution? i feel like im not understanding this stimulus period.
please help!

thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Attribution can be considered as a claim of authorship/creation.

Here's the argument in simpler terms, using just one painter to make things easier:

It's really tough to actually prove that van Gogh painted any one particular painting two or three hundred years ago, especially if he didn't sign it. Because of this, we have to rely ("give special weight") on what people in the past have said about whether van Gogh painted a particular painting or not. If someone wants to say van Gogh didn't paint a particular painting, that someone will have to prove a lot of evidence that some other specific artist painted it.

The question stem is asking why traditional attribution ("what others have said in the past") shouldn't be given special weight. (A) gives us a reason why, perhaps, people in the past who said a particular painting was a van Gogh may have had ulterior motives for doing so.

[tamwaiman]

Hi

In order to weaken the traditional attribution, I wonder why (C) & (D) are incorrect, thank you.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

(C) doesn't speak directly to a difficulty in "traditional attribution" (which can be thought of as "Who people in the past said painted a particular painting").
Instead, notice that (C) is a comment that, if anything, relates to the general idea that it is difficult to prove who made what painting. It basically reinforces that part of the argument, and doesn't impact the conclusion directly -- it doesn't prove "traditional attribution" specifically to be less accurate.

(D) might be true, but note (D) doesn't mean the attribution is inaccurate (or accurate). The attribution can be accurate, and it can still influence perception. Or it can be inaccurate and influence perception. Therefore, it's unclear what impact this answer would have on the opinion that traditional attribution should have special weight in determining who painted a picture.

Hope that helps. Please feel free to follow up if you have additional questions.

[lbalocca]

But the question asks what supports the position that "the traditional attribution of a disputed painting should not have special weight."

I understand that A clearly supports that position. But so does D.

If attribution shapes perceptions such that the attribution would make the work of a minor seem like the work of a master, then that is a great reason why traditional attribution should not be given special weight. If it was, that would bias people against the evidence in the painting.

[XEVIAN_ZONG]

（D) is about the role of an attribution. It is basically saying that any attribution can shape perception not just traditional attribution. But the question asked why we should not give special weight to traditional attribution.

[marshal_of_grey]

I had a difficult time with this question since I eliminated A on my first pass. We're talking only about art historians in the stim, so changing it to art dealers in the answer choice seems to be a run-of-the-mill LSAT trap. Had the answer choice not changed the group of people, the answer would clearly be correct. But I judged the switch to be too great to overlook. Why is it acceptable?

[ohthatpatrick]

Part of what makes untangling this question tricky is that we're strengthening the OPPOSITE of a conclusion from the stimulus.

The stimulus told us that
"The traditional attribution of a disputed painting is given special weight"
why?
- the traditional attribution carries the presumption of historical continuity.

In other words, nobody can actually prove whether this painting is a Picasso or somebody else, so we might as well accept the idea that it's a Picasso, since people have been calling it a Picasso for hundreds of years.

The question stem wants us to go against that.

We could call this a Strengthen question, but it's one of those rare questions where we don't actually have an "argument" to strengthen, just a "claim".

Claim:
The traditional attribution shouldn't get special weight
why?

I don't know. That's what the correct answer needs to tell me.

(A) This provides an answer to the question, because it suggests that traditional attributions are often based not in fact but in selfish motivations. It basically makes the traditional attribution sound a little bit sketchier as a source of credible information. It doesn't matter that we're talking about art dealers vs. art historians. The issue is the traditional attribution -- should we trust it? should we presume it's true until proven otherwise? Any idea that relates to that issue is fair game.

(B) This goes the opposite way. This INCREASES the credibility of the traditional attribution, because it says that there would be eyewitnesses who could reliably attest to who painted a given painting.

(C) Nothing here relates specifically to traditional attributions vs. subsequent attributions. It really just reinforces that it's super hard to prove who painted a painting, hundreds of years later.

(D) This testifies to the effect that ANY attribution can have on the observer, whether it's a traditional one or a subsequent one. So again, it doesn't help us doubt the traditional or trust any other attribution more.

(E) This is about standards of how to attribute a painting, but it has nothing to do with the issue of whether traditional attributions are more/less trustworthy than alternatives.

[WaltGrace1983]

I had a few more thoughts on this one.

"Traditional attribution of a disputed painting should NOT have special weight" is what we are strengthening.

(B) This doesn't impact much (though as stated earlier, it may weaken a tad). Saying that "correct attribution cannot arise at that time" doesn't really testify as to whether or not the traditional attribution should or shouldn't be given special weight. After the painting is originally created, we would need to know if the attribution would conform to or go against the eyewitness's account.

(C) This lacks discussion of attribution. "Are the works properly attributed?" is the question we want to answer! In addition, I think (C) is too weak: "not always" and "occasional" make it seem like this is a very rare case in which one cannot tell the difference between a pro and an amateur.

(D) But is the attribution proper? That is the question!

(E) This weakens a bit to me: "properly attributed to masters alone."

I think (C) is probably the most tempting answer. However, look at how strong (A) is in relation to (C): Art dealers ALWAYS are led by economic self-interest to attribute...

[YudeS218]

I failed to recognize why "traditional attribution" means that what others have said in the past. There is only "historical continuity" in the passage.

thanks in advance!