Must be true/ strongly supported

[kristinaroz93]

I put these questions together since they are a page apart on the lr bible and part of the same family of questions. Maybe someone can kill 2 birds in one stone for me here =D

Logical reasoning bible (pg 120 # 6): "Cezanne's art inspired the next generation of artists, twentieth- century modernist creators..."
C) I find this answer very confusing, better than the rest, but still confusing. It would make sense if it said that Cezanna helped develop abstract art, since she inspired the people who went on to later make it. But how could she have helped develop modernism? It just says she inspired "modernist creators of abstract art". What if even though they were modernists themselves, their work had nothing to do with modernism! Do we even know abstract art is part of modernism? I just do not even see how this answer was logically deduced or correct =/ (feeling frustrated).

Logical reasoning bible (pg. 121 #8): "One of the most vexing problems in historiography is dating an event when the usual sources offer conflicting chronologies..."

So the last tibbit of the stimulus goes like "Once this is achieved and several sources are left...which date is more likely to be right". So here is the confusion: The historians narrow down options to a few credible sources, but then they on their own come up with what they think the date is and ignore the sources they just narrowed down? (This is counter intuitive obviously, but that's how I am interpreting what is written). What is the accurate interpretation of this last tibbit?

Thanks in advance!

[David Boyle]

I put these questions together since they are a page apart on the lr bible and part of the same family of questions. Maybe someone can kill 2 birds in one stone for me here =D

Logical reasoning bible (pg 120 # 6): "Cezanne's art inspired the next generation of artists, twentieth- century modernist creators..."
C) I find this answer very confusing, better than the rest, but still confusing. It would make sense if it said that Cezanna helped develop abstract art, since she inspired the people who went on to later make it. But how could she have helped develop modernism? It just says she inspired "modernist creators of abstract art". What if even though they were modernists themselves, their work had nothing to do with modernism! Do we even know abstract art is part of modernism? I just do not even see how this answer was logically deduced or correct =/ (feeling frustrated).

Logical reasoning bible (pg. 121 #8): "One of the most vexing problems in historiography is dating an event when the usual sources offer conflicting chronologies..."

So the last tibbit of the stimulus goes like "Once this is achieved and several sources are left...which date is more likely to be right". So here is the confusion: The historians narrow down options to a few credible sources, but then they on their own come up with what they think the date is and ignore the sources they just narrowed down? (This is counter intuitive obviously, but that's how I am interpreting what is written). What is the accurate interpretation of this last tibbit?

Thanks in advance!

Hello,

I think it's safe to say that if they were modernists their work was modernist.
Paul Cezanne was a man.
From the last tidbit, they apparently do use other means than the usual sources, since the usual sources are not helpful.

David

[kristinaroz93]

1)But its like saying someone who is a finance major does a finance job, not neccessarily true. What if they were modernists who branched into another field but kept the name? Is it really impossible to be true=/( I guess I am overthinking this one)

2)So why did they waste time narrowing down between options at all to just go their own way and not choose between the options they narrowed down?!
2a)Is there some differnence between usual sources and competing sources?
I think I need some more clarification with this problem and what it is saying!

[David Boyle]

1)But its like saying someone who is a finance major does a finance job, not neccessarily true. What if they were modernists who branched into another field but kept the name? Is it really impossible to be true=/( I guess I am overthinking this one)

2)So why did they waste time narrowing down between options at all to just go their own way and not choose between the options they narrowed down?!
2a)Is there some differnence between usual sources and competing sources?
I think I need some more clarification with this problem and what it is saying!

Hello kristinaroz93,

No, it's not. The stimulus doesn't say they were modernism majors, but that they were modernists. You may be really overthinking this one.

After they narrow down the options, they may still not have certainty. Then they can do something independent to see if they can figure the answer; if they have to go back to the sources, at least there'll be fewer to choose among.
"Competing" here may mean the various (usual) sources which don't agree with one another, and so are "competing" against one another.

Hope this helps,
David

[Echx73]

Hey Team,

I have a question concerning the ways you should approach the MBT question. From the LR Bible's introduction to MBT, 75% of MBT questions are fact lists (which are stimulus not containing any conclusion) and about 25% do contain conclusions. My question is, when I find a MBT question with a conclusion in the stimulus, do I solely focus on the conclusion to find the correct answer?

Eric

[Adam Tyson]

I'd say it's a bad idea to SOLELY focus on anything - narrowing your focus and trying to come up with a broad rule like that will lead to missing things at the periphery. Instead, perhaps, START with the conclusion and see what else Must Be True based upon that, but be prepared to bring in additional information from the stimulus to help out.

Here's an example, albeit a rather simple one: Cats and dogs are mammals, and all mammals are warm-blooded, so cats are warm-blooded.

What else must be true? Dogs are also warm-blooded. If you focused solely on the conclusion, about cats, you would miss this rather obvious answer. Think that's a silly example? Look in whichever course book you are using for the lesson on conditional reasoning and find the question about politicians found to be involved in serious scandals. It follows that pattern almost exactly.

Try to avoid basing your approach on restrictive rules and shortcuts. There are very few absolutes about the LSAT, and looking for absolute rules will too often lead you astray. Instead, read with an open mind and an aggressive attitude and you'll find you're much better prepared and accurate in the long run.

Good luck!

[Echx73]

Thanks, Adam!