Q26 - In the paintings by seventeeth-century

[ilene.molina]

Hey,

I've narrowed it down to B or E, but I just don't see why E is a better answer when both seem to follow logically.

I see that it wasn't because of a lack of props that Vermeer used the same props.

The question asks what is the assumption that is necessary (sufficient or necessary) for the argument to make sense?

Therefore, doesn't answer B HAVE TO BE assumed? They must always be available to him, otherwise, he would LACK props and it would throw the argument out the window, wouldn't it?

Am I reading this all wrong? THANKS FOR THE HELP!

Ilene

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This question asks us to find an assumption that would allow the conclusion to be validly drawn. See the word "if?" That implies that this question is a sufficient assumption. So we need to add something that will guarantee the conclusion follows.

The evidence establishes that Vermeer used expensive props.

The argument concludes that Vermeer did not have a lack of props.

The argument assumes that "if Vermeer used expensive props, then he did not have a lack of props."

This assumption is best expressed in the form of a contrapositive in answer choice (E). But let's take a look at the other answer choices as well.

(A) does not bridge a gap to anything related to a lack of props. The conclusion is about a lack of props, so since we're on a sufficient assumption question, we need to evidence that relates to a lack of props, and this answer choice doesn't give us that.
(B) does not allow a conclusion about a lack of props to be justified.
(C) does not allow a conclusion about a lack of props to be justified.
(D) is totally irrelevant.

#officialexplanation
(E) is correct. This answer relates the evidence with the conclusion, allowing the conclusion to be properly drawn. In this case "dearth" means "lack."

Does this help clear things up? Remember on Sufficient Assumption questions, if you have a new term in the conclusion, it must be in the answer choices.

[nazu.s.shaikh]

Sorry for the trouble but I am still having a bit of trouble understanding why B is incorrect, I do see why though E is correct because it is a contrapositive of the original argument.

The way I understood B was that " if the props that recur in Vermeer's paintings were always available to him, it is clear than he did not lack any props"

Also in your side note, you mentioned that sufficient assumption questions, if there is a new term in the conclusion it must be in the answer choice as well.

What was the new term in the conclusion for this question?

[austindyoung]

Two years later... I'm assuming you took the LSAT. Hope you destroyed it. For everyone else:

Here is how I did it.

We need to keep one thing in mind, and that is that "dearth" is equivalent to "lack."

Sometimes, (as in 37-4-19 where "referendum" is used to equal "political power distributed among the citizenry") in these Sufficient Assumption Q's when trying to hook up terms that allow the conclusion to be drawn, the LSAT will equate words with definitions- if you don't know what the word means, it makes it a hell of a lot harder to do the proper links. Hopefully realizing the structure of the argument allows this to not be so bad of a deal.

That means, when you try to find that element that you think will be in the correct answer choice, the answer choice may include either one of the "equivalents," making it harder to spot the correct answer because your prephrase did not include the word and the definition to which it is equivalent to.

Moving along...

The "lone wolf" element here is not in the conclusion- it is in the premise. This element is "expensive," which is used to prove the conclusion- but it is not mentioned in the conclusion- so we need to hook it up.

So, the argument goes as such:

Premise: (BECAUSE) Reappearing objects (V's props) ---> Expensive

Conclusion: (THEREFORE) Reappearing objects (V's props) ---> ~Dearth of props (lack of props)


You should be thinking: Err, that does not follow.

HOWEVER: If we have Expensive ---> ~ Dearth of props (lack of props) THEN it totally works (we can also have the contrapositive; which is what (E) is.)

Let's look at it this way:

Premise (BECAUSE) : A---> B
Conclusion (THEREFORE): A--->C

Assumption (BECAUSE) B--->C (~C--->~B)

New Argument: (Premise) A--->B
(Assumption) B--->C
(Conclusion) A--->C
A--->B--->C


Yes, there is definitely redundancy involved- many times when you insert the answer into the argument you see just how redundant (in Sufficient Assumption Qs) the argument becomes- but that is what the stem asks for- it ALLOWS, 100% the conclusion to occur.

Furthermore- viewing this as a Necessary Assumption Question and trying to negate the answer is dangerous (I've done that before)- because you are doing something the question is not asking us to do-we do not want to know what is necessary.

First- the props wouldn't always need to be available to him. In a Necessary Assumption Q, that would probably be too strong. And here, it is not SUFFICIENT to guarantee that he did not use fewer props because he lacked props: maybe the few props (dearth) he had were always available to him. So, (B) can be cast to the flames.

[syh0912029]

I got this question right. Here is the process of solving this question.

1. ID the Question Type: Sufficient Assumption.
2. ID the Argument Core:
Supporting Premise/Evidence- (Yet) we know that many of the props Vermeer used were expensive.
Conclusion- (Thus), it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used.

(E) is correct, because it properly explains the gap in order to support of this argument. Vermeer is able to afford buying expensive props, for example, a satin jacket may cost $10,000. Vermeer would have paid $10,000 to buy other variety ranges of the props, however, Vermeer chooses to buy one expensive prop for his painting in order to meet up his preference or artistic view. If a stain jacket may cost $1, it may explain that a lack of props in Vermeer's painting because there is no feasible way for Vermeer to afford other props as it seems that he is even in the difficulty of affording $1 worth of the prop; however, the argument many of Vermeer's props are expensive.