LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 abaskm
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: Aug 14, 2020
|
#80455
Can anyone tell me how to use the justify formula for this question? It seems that this problem is not entirely suited for it (i could be wrong).
The painter Peter Brandon never dated his works, and their chronology is only now beginning to take shape in the critical literature. A recent dating of a Brandon self-portrait to 1930 is surely wrong. Brandon was 63 years old in 1930, yet the painting shows a young, dark-haired man-obviously Brandon, but clearly not a man of 63.

Which of the following, if justifiably assumed, allows the conclusion to be properly drawn?
A. There is no securely dated self-portrait of Brandon that he painted when he was significantly younger than 63.
B. In refraining from dating his works, Brandon intended to steer critical discussion of them away from considerations of chronology.
C. Until recently, there was very little critical literature on the works of Brandon.
D. Brandon at age 63 would not have portrayed himself in a painting as he had looked when he was a young man.
E. Brandon painted several self-portraits that showed him as a man past the age of 60.
User avatar
 Stephanie Turaj
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 440
  • Joined: Jan 11, 2016
|
#80460
Hi abaskm,

Thanks for the post! I removed the full text of this question, as LSAC copyright regulations prohibit full question text from being posted online.

However, I unfortunately don't see an LSAT question or any text in our LRB that references this question. Can you please advise as to where you sourced this question from?

Thanks!
 abaskm
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: Aug 14, 2020
|
#80471
Stephanie Turaj wrote:Hi abaskm,

Thanks for the post! I removed the full text of this question, as LSAC copyright regulations prohibit full question text from being posted online.

However, I unfortunately don't see an LSAT question or any text in our LRB that references this question. Can you please advise as to where you sourced this question from?

Thanks!
Understood Stephanie,

Now I know. It was an old GRE problem (I bought the PowerScore book to better understand CR problems on the GRE which it has immensely).

The problem is available online. Would it be possible to reference a problem by giving a link or some other means?

Sorry I’m new to this forum. Any options on how to discuss problems are appreciated.

Thanks
Mike
User avatar
 Stephanie Turaj
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 440
  • Joined: Jan 11, 2016
|
#80500
abaskm wrote: It was an old GRE problem (I bought the PowerScore book to better understand CR problems on the GRE which it has immensely).
The problem is available online.
Ahh, gotcha! I added the text to that question back in there for an instructor to reference and answer. :). Thanks!
 Jeremy Press
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 836
  • Joined: Jun 12, 2017
|
#80696
Hi Mike,

The Justify Formula simply involves adding an answer choice you're considering to the premises from the stimulus to see whether, when the answer is added to those stimulus premises, the conclusion is fully validated.

We could do that here, by adding answer choice D to the premises in the stimulus.

Stimulus Premise 1:Brandon was 63 years old in 1930.
Stimulus Premise 2: The painting (i.e., the self-portrait) shows a young, dark-haired man who is obviously Brandon, but clearly is not a man of 63.
Answer Choice D (premise 3): Brandon at age 63 would not have portrayed himself in a painting as he had looked when he was a young man.

Conclusion: The recent dating of the Brandon self-portrait to 1930 is surely wrong.

With answer choice D added to the premises, the conclusion is fully validated. Why? Because if Brandon at age 63 (in 1930) would not have painted himself as a young man, then this painting that shows Brandon as a young man was surely not painted in 1930.

That's the Justify Formula on full display, and it works really well! All Justify questions can be solved similarly, so feel comfortable using that method on any of them!

I hope this helps!
 abaskm
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: Aug 14, 2020
|
#80707
Jeremy Press wrote:Hi Mike,

The Justify Formula simply involves adding an answer choice you're considering to the premises from the stimulus to see whether, when the answer is added to those stimulus premises, the conclusion is fully validated.

We could do that here, by adding answer choice D to the premises in the stimulus.

Stimulus Premise 1:Brandon was 63 years old in 1930.
Stimulus Premise 2: The painting (i.e., the self-portrait) shows a young, dark-haired man who is obviously Brandon, but clearly is not a man of 63.
Answer Choice D (premise 3): Brandon at age 63 would not have portrayed himself in a painting as he had looked when he was a young man.

Conclusion: The recent dating of the Brandon self-portrait to 1930 is surely wrong.

With answer choice D added to the premises, the conclusion is fully validated. Why? Because if Brandon at age 63 (in 1930) would not have painted himself as a young man, then this painting that shows Brandon as a young man was surely not painted in 1930.

That's the Justify Formula on full display, and it works really well! All Justify questions can be solved similarly, so feel comfortable using that method on any of them!

I hope this helps!
Thanks a lot Jeremy!

I was overcomplicating things. This makes a lot of sense now.

Mike

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.