medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Critic A argues that the museum's new acquisition policy will dilute the quality of the permanent collection, because purchasing decisions will now be made by a committee rather than by a single expert curator. Critic B responds that committees, by pooling diverse expertise, are far less likely to be swayed by any one person's blind spots, and that the most acclaimed collections of the past century were assembled by acquisition committees.
Critic B responds to Critic A by
- disputing Critic A's assumption that decision-making by a single expert is superior to decision-making by a committee
- conceding that committee decisions do reduce collection quality but arguing the resulting trade-off is worthwhile for other reasons
- showing that Critic A has badly misunderstood the actual operative terms of the museum's new acquisition policy itself
- demonstrating that no widely acclaimed collection has ever once been assembled by a single curator working entirely alone
- objecting that Critic A is simply not sufficiently qualified to comment on professional museum acquisition practices
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ