Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Preptest #21, Section 3, LR #13  (Read 229 times)

uwofresh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
    • View Profile
Preptest #21, Section 3, LR #13
« on: May 30, 2005, 03:23:33 PM »
One of the effects of lead poisoning is an inflammation of the optic nerve, which casuese those who have it to see bright haloes around light sources.  In aorder to produce the striking yellow effects in his "Sunflowers" paintins, Van Gogh used Naples yellow, a pigment containing lead.  Since in his later paintings, van gogh painted bright haloes around hte stars and sun, it is likeluy that he was suffering from lead poisoning caused by ingesting the pigments he used.

which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

A.) In Van Gogh's later paintings he painted some things as he saw them.
B.) Van Gogh continued to use paints containing lead after having painted the "Sunflower" paintings.
C.) Van gogh did not have symptoms of lead posioning aside from seeing bright haloes around light sources.
D.) The paints Van Gogh used in the "Sunflowers" paintings had no toxic ingredients other than lead.
E.) The effects of Naples yellow could not have been achieved using other pigments.










I understand why the right answer is A.  But I can't disprove why the correct answer also can't be D. 

I felt like by assuming D, it eliminated any other alternative possibility that the OTHER element may have CAUSED Van gogh to see bright haloes.  Can someone help??!!



bobwil50

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Preptest #21, Section 3, LR #13
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2005, 03:33:12 PM »
A)

The conclusion is that Van Gogh was suffering from leading poisoning.  The support is that his paintings looked like what someone with lead poisoning would see.

The missing link is that he painted what he saw.

And its not D because it is not essential to the argument, which talks specifically about lead poisoning, not poisoning in general.
LSAT: 168
GPA: 3.8

Number6

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
Re: Preptest #21, Section 3, LR #13
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2005, 07:00:07 PM »
One of the effects of lead poisoning is an inflammation of the optic nerve, which casuese those who have it to see bright haloes around light sources.  In aorder to produce the striking yellow effects in his "Sunflowers" paintins, Van Gogh used Naples yellow, a pigment containing lead.  Since in his later paintings, van gogh painted bright haloes around hte stars and sun, it is likeluy that he was suffering from lead poisoning caused by ingesting the pigments he used.
...

I understand why the right answer is A.  But I can't disprove why the correct answer also can't be D. 

I felt like by assuming D, it eliminated any other alternative possibility that the OTHER element may have CAUSED Van gogh to see bright haloes.  Can someone help??!!

Try negating the assumptions.  If you negate D, you leave open the possibility that there were other toxic chemicals.  And?  If he painted with lead and arsenic, for instance, that doesn't really weaken the argument (it doesn't strengthen it, either).  So, since assuming the opposite of D doesn't weaken the argument, it can't be a required assumption.

Try negating A.  Say Van Gogh NEVER painted things as he saw them.  Well, in that case, the things in his paintings aren't necessarily representative of how he sees things, so you can't use his paintings to prove anything about what he really saw.  Because the opposite of A really weakens the argument, it's probably required.

XYZZY

  • Guest
Re: Preptest #21, Section 3, LR #13
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2005, 08:18:58 PM »
"D.) The paints Van Gogh used in the "Sunflowers" paintings had no toxic ingredients other than lead."

Choice D could be an assumption, but not one on which the argument DEPENDS.  Van Gogh could have gotten lead poisoning from sources other than the paints.  Maybe they drank lead for fun in his day.