Everyone who is a gourmet cook enjoys a wide variety of foods and spices. Since no one who enjoys a wide variety of f...

Victoria February 13, 2020

Hi @Mazen,

I think you're asking if (E) as a standalone passage would demonstrate correct reasoning and a valid conclusion? Please let me know if I have interpreted your question incorrectly.

Let's start by diagramming answer choice (E).

"Every painting from the Huang Collection that is to be auctioned off next week is a major work of art."

PHCNW - > MWA

Not MWA - > Not PHCNW

"No price can adequately reflect the true value of a major work of art."

MWA - > No PAR

PAR - > Not MWA

"Hence, the prices that will be paid at next week's auction will not adequately reflect the true value of the paintings sold."

Notice, we can use the transitive property to conclude that:

PHCNW - > MWA - > No PAR

However, the concluding sentence of the passage says that the prices that will be paid at next week's auction will not adequately reflect the true value of the paintings sold. This assumes that the only paintings that will be sold at the auction are those from the Huang Collection, making the conclusion an improper inference.

If not for this nuance, the conclusion drawn in answer choice (E) would be correct.

Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Mazen February 14, 2020

Victoria, thank you.

Yes you understood me correctly. And yes, I see now that I was wrong because, as you said, the conclusion of answer choice E is an improper inference based on the gap that "the only paintings that will be sold at the auction price are those from the Huang Collection." It's a leap.

However, can I also render E an improper inference because the conclusion makes another leap. The unestablished premise that the conclusion assumes is: the prices that will be paid are only those that are MWA (major works of Arts)?

Please let me know what you think?

shunhe May 2, 2020

Hi @Mazen,

Thanks for the question! That’s a pretty good catch. We know that every painting from a given collection that’s going to be auctioned off is a major work of art. But we don’t know that every painting at the auction will be from that collection. That’s kind of something we have to assume, and it is one that makes sense, but it technically could be true that other paintings are going to be auctioned off at this collection that aren’t major works of art. And if that’s true, it’s possible the reflect the true value of those paintings. And so since “the prices” more likely refers to “all the prices” based on standard usage, there is a jump there. Now, if “the prices” just meant “some of the prices,” then there wouldn’t be such a jump. But I think that you’re ok saying that that’s a leap.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

Mazen May 2, 2020

Shunhe, great analysis! Those LSAT writers really covered all their bases.

Thank you for responding.