Q1

[layamaheshwari]

Why is E not the correct answer? I thought lines 13-18 (first 2 sentences of the 2nd paragraph) made a strong case for oil painting and perfumery being sister arts and involving similar activities.

Can someone explain? I had D as a Contender but thought "deserve respect and attention as such" was a bit too...extreme?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey layamaheshwari, I see your point. And that location between the transition from the 1st to 2nd paragraph is so often where the author's thesis sits. But the LSAT also loves to reason by comparison.

The author compares perfumery with other pursuits which are typically considered art and suggests that great perfume should be considered art as well.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is contradicted by the passage which asserts that corporations are "not particularly watchful."
(B) is too narrow. While this may be true, it is evidence for the author's conclusion.
(C) is unsupported. The answer changes the question put forward from "why great perfumes are not considered great art" to "why so few great perfumes are produced."
(E) represents the argument's evidence. The parallels between perfumery and other arts (oil painting and others) are support for the contention that great perfumes are works of art too.

[laura.bach]

I was also torn between (D) and (E). Would it be possible to get an explanation that's a little more in-depth between the two?

Thank you!

[Didius Falco]

Hey!

I am not Matt, but I wanted to chime in with my thoughts, in case they might be helpful.

I think Matt hits the point right on the head in his one-sentence on (E).

The 'sister-art' comparison sits at the center of the piece, but it is really advanced after paragraph 1 asks "Why is great perfume not taken more seriously?". P1 then goes on to mention a great perfume, which it implies is an under-appreciated masterpiece. To me , this looked like a strong initial thesis-starting point/type line. And it did not run something like "Perfumery and oil painting are in fact kindred art forms". It had a broader and more general scope---the value of Perfume as art; and the considerations that explain its neglect on that level.

To me, this sort of 'set the stage' for the issue of the piece---asserting that great perfumes really are valuable artwork, and deserve appreciation on that level. From this vantage, it was easier to see the structure as something like:

P1: Claim + Question (Perfume is art---but why isn't it appreciated?)
P2+3: Evidence for Claim (Perfume is at least as much art as the oil paintings everyone loves)
P4: A further Consideration/Answer of Question (Maybe they do not appreciate it because of what has happened to the perfume industry)

From this vantage, I was able to identify E as more of a statement of evidence than the MP.




Further, I think you could consider using the quick-and-dirty backup strategy of seeing how well each answer could be interpreted to cover the whole scope of the passage. This is a little ugly, but I am able to see D as summarizing paragraphs 1-3, and at least relating to 4.

It is pretty hard to see E addressing anything except the concerns of paragraphs 2+3 (maybe a little of 1).