easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A museum curator states: "While some critics believe this painting is a forgery, chemical analysis of the pigments shows they were manufactured using 17th-century techniques. Furthermore, the brushwork is identical to that of other authenticated works by the artist. Therefore, the painting is almost certainly genuine."
In the curator's argument, the two statements regarding pigments and brushwork serve to
- offer two separate strands of support that jointly back the conclusion that the work is authentic
- lay out the criteria whose full satisfaction would establish that the painting is in fact a forgery
- express the argument's own main conclusion once again in more specialized, technical language
- highlight a weak point in the critics' stated position that the curator then proceeds to exploit
- establish that no painting can be authenticated without both chemical and stylistic testing done
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