I'd say you are right, if all you're looking at is "most." The last line, I think, is intended to limit the scope of "most" to "most but not all," with "rarely" meaning the set has *some* members.
TITCR. There was no mistake on the part of LSAC or Powerscore.
Just for argument's sake, let's define "most" narrowly. Let's say it means "75%." If all
artists are less insightful, it is still true
that 75% of them are less insightful. (Notice I didn't say "only
75%," nor did the stimulus say "only
most") Literally, "most" means "more than 50%," but the same analysis holds true. If all are X, then more than 50% are X. "Most," therefore, does not
Gonzolaw nailed this one. The last sentence says, "artistic talen [sic] and political insight are rarely found together," that is they are
found together rarely. It must be, then, that some artists (in those "rare" instances) are not
lacking in insight. Lacking compared to whom? Compared to their non-artist counterparts. Put-it-all-together-and-what-do-ya-got? "Some artists are no less politically insightful than some reasonably well-educated persons who are not artists."
But the sentence "artistic talent and political insight are rarely found together," even if it does suggest that they are, in fact, sometimes found together, says nothing about the LEVEL of political insight relative to well-educated non-artists. So while some artists may have political insight, we cannot assume that they have "no less political insight" than well educated non-artists.
The typical argument here is to say that this analysis is deeper than any thinking required by the LSAT, and if you can think this deeply, you can also determine that the other four answers are categorically incorrect and that this is therefore the "best" answer. It's true, but it's also kindof a cop-out.
The last sentence begins with "Indeed" which is used to indicate the author intends to reinforce or clarify what has already been said. It signals that this sentence is intended to interact with the previous one, i.e. to define the scope of "most." The author could have written, "Indeed, . . . artistic talent and political insight are never
found together," refining "most" into "all." But they didn't. They said "Indeed, . . . artistic talen[t] and political insight are rarely found together," refining the "most" into "most but not all."
Also, do not forget the first sentence, "There is little point in looking to artists for insights into political issues." So there is
a point in looking to artists for insight, however little. (Think Dumb & Dumber--"So there IS a chance!) But if you were guaranteed to find greater insight from non artists, there would be no
point in looking to artists.