LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8234
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen-PR. The correct answer choice is (E)

Shanna argues that owners have the right to destroy art if doing so suits their fancy.

Jorge retorts that ownership, in the case of art, does not give one the right to destroy art. He argues that artwork belongs to posterity, so art must be preserved.

While Jorge's position may be more enticing than Shanna's, the fact is that his argument is no more logically sound than is hers. Jorge's argument involves the principle that certain objects imply a degree of community ownership, while Shanna's involves the principle that ownership is always individual and exclusive. Neither principle is something that is demanded by logic. You are asked to help Shanna, so you should find a choice that favors her position.

Answer choice (A): This response attempts to make Jorge's concerns irrelevant by suggesting that even under Shanna's principle, artwork would not be destroyed. However, the possibility that people would not choose to use the right to destroy artwork does not logically support the idea that they should be allowed the choice. Furthermore, since you have no reason to believe that those who own works of art are serious students of the history of art, this choice should not even fully assuage Jorge's concerns.

Answer choice (B): The idea that the rights of posterity outweigh the rights of a single living individual supports Jorge's argument, not Shanna's.

Answer choice (C): This choice suggests that it might be imprudent to allow people to destroy artwork, which supports Jorge somewhat and attacks Shanna.

Answer choice (D): The principle that there are some things that cannot justifiably be absolutely (exclusively) owned might support Jorge's claims that owners of artwork do not possess full, exclusive ownership rights.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This principle grants that as long as there is no threat to health or safety, individuals must be allowed to do as they please with what they own. Since it is reasonable to think that most artwork could be destroyed without risk to health or safety (obviously the choice does not mean psychological health), this principle is good support for Shanna and a good attack on Jorge.
User avatar
  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: Dec 22, 2020
How would we diagram these arguments? Would it be:
right to destroy any work of art :arrow: morally / aesthetically distasteful OR caring for it becomes inconvenient

The "if they find it morally... " had me originally diagramming this part as the sufficient, but then the statement didn't really alot of sense this way. I just want to see if my reasoning is right.

Unique artworks :arrow: moral right to posses but not destroy
 Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 529
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2011
Hi Jocelyn,

You are trying to make something conditional that is not here. Arguably, we could diagram Shanna's argument as a conditional.

If morally/aesthetically objectionable OR a burden to care for :arrow: ok to destroy.

Jorge doesn't argue conditionally at all. He's making a more nuanced argument about considering communal value of unique artwork.

It can be really tempting to try to make as many things conditional as you can. It's a powerful relationship between terms, and there really is a lot that you can do with certainty when you have a conditional relationship. But that doesn't make all relationships or statements conditional. Just like you need to be careful when determining what is sufficient and what is necessary, you need to be careful that there actually is a conditional relationship presented in the argument.

Hope that helps!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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