medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A museum curator argued that the museum's collection of 19th-century landscape paintings is superior to its collection of 20th-century abstract art because the landscape paintings attract three times as many visitors.
The curator's reasoning is questionable because it
- treats how many people come to see a body of work as settling how good that work is
- assumes the landscape paintings are simply better preserved than the abstract works
- ignores that producing abstract art may be more demanding than producing landscape art
- supposes that visitor counts are the only thing that determines the museum's funding
- concludes that the abstract collection has no artistic value whatsoever
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