LSAT Explanation PT 36, S1, Q26: In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch

LSAT Question Stem

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Sufficient Assumption question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

This question is a Sufficient Assumption question, which asks us to find an assumption that would guarantee the conclusion to be validly drawn. The passage provides evidence that Vermeer used expensive props in his paintings and concludes that the recurrence of certain items was not due to a lack of props. Our task is to identify the assumption that bridges the gap between the evidence and conclusion.

Let's examine each answer choice in detail:

(a) Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.

- This choice does not directly address the issue of a lack of props. It only tells us that Vermeer borrowed the props, but it doesn't help us conclude that the recurrence of items was not due to a lack of props.

(b) The props that recur in Vermeer's paintings were always available to him.

- While this choice tells us that the recurrent items were always available, it does not provide a direct link between the use of expensive props and the conclusion that there wasn't a lack of props.

(c) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer's sister.

- This choice is irrelevant to the conclusion about a lack of props. It only provides information about the ownership of some recurrent items, but it doesn't help us conclude that the recurrence of items was not due to a lack of props.

(d) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer's paintings had special sentimental importance for him.

- This choice is also irrelevant to the conclusion about a lack of props. It provides information about the emotional significance of the recurrent items, but it doesn't help us conclude that the recurrence of items was not due to a lack of props.

(e) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer's paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them.

- This choice is the correct one, as it directly links the evidence (use of expensive props) with the conclusion (recurrence of items not due to a lack of props). It states that if a lack of props were the reason for the recurrence of certain items, we wouldn't see expensive props in Vermeer's paintings. Since we know that Vermeer used expensive props, this assumption guarantees that the conclusion is validly drawn.

In summary, answer choice (e) is the correct answer as it provides a direct link between the evidence and the conclusion, allowing the conclusion to be properly drawn.