LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

 Kallistatiefling
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: Oct 12, 2019
|
#71460
Hello,

In the explanation for question #1 on page 638 (2018 edition) it says, "For Jorge, the art would also have to be proven non-unique, non-aesthetically valuable, and non-historically valuable before he would justify the destruction". I'm clear on why (a) is correct, but I'm unclear on the phrasing of the explanation.

Jorge says "Ownership of unique artworks, unlike ownership of other kinds of objects, carries the moral right to possess but not to destroy. A unique work of art with aesthetic or historical value belongs to posterity and so must be preserved, whatever the personal wishes of its legal owner."

In the first sentence, he refers to all unique art. In the second sentence, he refers to the subsect of unique art with aesthetical or historical value. Since his first sentence refers to all members of the group, why would the portrait need to be proven to be non-historically and non-aesthetically valuable for Jorge to find the destruction justified? Wouldn't non-uniqueness be sufficient?


Thank you
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 4027
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#71509
Hi Kallie,

Thanks for the question! I typically answer questions about the Bibles, but I've been out of town and have now returned how to power outages due to nearby fire threats. So, I will try to answer your question in a timely fashion, but it may be a bit. Sorry about that!
 Kallistatiefling
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: Oct 12, 2019
|
#71688
Hi Dave,

That's no problem at all.

Thanks for letting me know.
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 4027
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#71734
Hi Kalli,

The reason I mentioned all three items there was because Jorge does. Yes, he starts with just uniqueness, but then he qualifies it thereafter, so in explaining his point I deferred to addressing all the points he made. My take is that uniqueness is a foundational trait, but that the other two traits can add a sort of emphasis to his point, and so are useful. I'd probably change my description slightly to add an "and" in there and remove a comma, in order to make that clearer.

Thanks!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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