Q6 - The recent cleaning of frescoes

[LSAT-Chang]

Is (B) wrong because it doesn't give us anything that supports the conclusion? Since our conclusion is that the interpretations of the frescoes that seemed appropriate before the frescoes' restoration may no longer be appropriate because art historians are now aware that the colors of the work they study may differ from the works' original colors. So there is a gap in between about something dealing with colors adding to the appropriate interpretations of these pieces, so I see how (C) nicely connects the premise to the conclusion by basically saying that the colors are relevant to the appropriate interpretation of the artwork since if it wasn't relevant, then it makes no sense for the author to conclude what he did just from the evidence about colors not being the same. But I'm curious to know what role (B) plays. Is (B) just another premise that could be added to the argument to boost the premise already stated that colors may no longer be the same?

[timmydoeslsat]

Good job of explaining this one.

You notice that interpretations came out of nowhere in this argument and into our conclusion.

We need something to justify this claim of colors affecting interpretation.

Good job on picking C.

A) Nothing to do with color differences

B) Nothing to do with interpretation

D) Nothing about the color differences

E) Nothing to link us with color to interpretation no longer being appropriate possibly.

[demetri.blaisdell]

You've got a great handle on the argument core but you know that we love wrong answer choices here at Manhattan LSAT. One last look at (B) before we put this to bed.

(B) is a premise booster. We already know that the colors are different from the original colors. Telling us that the author did or didn't intend for these colors to be different doesn't address the gap in the argument. The term shift is between the colors being different and the interpretations being appropriate.

I hope that helps you completely obliterate (B). Let me know if you have any further questions on this one.

Demetri

[WaltGrace1983]

In addition to being a premise booster, I think (B) is just simply irrelevant to the argument. Why? Because we need extra assumptions to make it work (which is never a good sign in LSAT world). What I mean is that we need to assume that there is some connection between the artist's intention and a later relevent interpretation. This would work if we knew something about how basing an interpretation of art on something that the artist did not intend made that interpretation not relevant. That would, of course, be changing the argument completely though.

I also just wanted to point out that on (E) we get some conditional language in which "interpretations of artwork are appropriate" is the necessary condition. Just remember: this could never be the right answer even if (D) followed the "if" with something about color. This is a common LSAT trap.

[adisadeliovsky]

I for the life of me just cannot understand why C is correct, could someone explain it? I really can't even understand how its the best choice for the stimulus? This one definitely went way over my head!

[JorieB701]

I also just wanted to point out that on (E) we get some conditional language in which "interpretations of artwork are appropriate" is the necessary condition. Just remember: this could never be the right answer even if (D) followed the "if" with something about color. This is a common LSAT trap.

This is interesting. Could someone please explain this a bit more?

Also, when I was thinking of what the correct answer might look like and framing it like a principle to be followed, B looked good to me. I think I was helping it along more than I should but I was thinking "hey, if the alteration would be different than what was originally intended, then the interpretations would be off." But I realize looking back at it that the stem seemed to indicate that the coloring following the restoration would actually be closer to what the artist intended. So, I guess B actually gets it completely wrong.

That aside, I clearly also got suckered because my overall approach is wrong. It seems to me that I possibly should have been approaching this as a plain old sufficient assumption question, and that the principle part of it just means that the language will likely be in more general terms than a regular sufficient assumption. Because if that's the case then C does seem to bridge the gap between: differing colors --> interpretations may no longer be appropriate.

But also, isn't C actually a necessary assumption of the argument?

Please help!!

[ohthatpatrick]

PRINCIPLE-SUPPORT, i.e. "Which principle, if valid, most justifies"
usually acts like Sufficient Assumption
but otherwise acts like Strengthen (and Necessary Assumptions strengthen)

So, yes, you should always be prephrasing Principle-Support as though you're doing Sufficient Assumption:
Prem --> Conc
or in this case
"Colors they study differ from colors of original --> interpretations might be inappropriate"

You can definitely see how (C) is strengthening this core. Indeed, it is a Necessary Assumption. You seemed troubled that it was a Necessary Assumption, but we're looking for the answer that most strengthens, and a Necessary Assumption does provide some Strengthening.

What Walt was saying about (E) was that on Principle questions, you should watch out for illegal reversals / negations of what we want.

We want something like:
"if colors differ from original, then interpretation IS NOT appropriate"
so any rule that says
"If such-and-such is true, then interpretation IS appropriate"
would be useless to us.