Where is the option E?
Otherwise B as:
A) Irrelevant
C) Strengthen the argument
D) Strengthen the argument

In IMO it is B.

Conclusion: the statue is probably a forgery
Argument: 'an ancient surface usually has uneven weathering, whereas the surface of this statue has the uniform quality characteristically produced by a chemical bath used by forgers to imitate a weathered surface'

(A) Museums can accept a recently unearthed statue only with valid export documentation from its country origin.
>> Not relevant in determining if it is a forgery.
(B) The chemical bath that forgers use was at one time used by dealers and collectors to remove the splotchy surface appearance of genuinely ancient sculptures.
>> It weakens the argument because dealers/collectors might have ised this chemical bath on this statue.
(C) Museum officials believe that forgers have no technique that can convincingly simulate the patchy weathering characteristic of the surfaces of ancient sculptures.
>> This statement will not weaken the argument. Argument considers uniform quality of weathering on the surface of the statue.
(D) An allegedly Roman Sculpture with a uniform surface similar to that of the statue being offered to the museum was recently shown to be a forgery.
>> This stengthens the argument.

The stimulus conclusion is: the statue is probably a forgery. Statement C indicates that forgers have no technique that can simulate the surface that of the original patchy look. This fact does not weaken the conclusion, in some way it even makes the coclusion more probable.
The answer is B.

Hey All,

Lot of great conversation going on about this one, so I thought I'd weigh in and try to take it apart with technique. Let's see how it goes.

A museum has been offered an undocumented statue, supposedly Greek and from sixth century B.C. Possibly the statue is genuine but undocumented because it was recently unearthed or because it has been privately owned. However, an ancient surface usually has uneven weathering, whereas the surface of this statue has the uniform quality characteristically produced by a chemical bath used by forgers to imitate a weathered surface. Therefore, the statue is probably a forgery.

Conclusion: The statue is probably a forgery.

Premise: Undocumented, with an even surface more characteristic of forgery than a genuine antique

Assumption: There's no way a genuine antique could get that even surface

This is my assumption, and I promise I have yet to read the answer choices. As far as I can see, this is the major leap the argument makes. if there's some way a genuine antique could end up with that fake-looking surface, this could still be genuine.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Museums can accept a recently unearthed statue only with valid export documentation from its country origin.

PROBLEM: This doesn't relate to the authenticity of the statue at all. We only care about the surface.

(B) The chemical bath that forgers use was at one time used by dealers and collectors to remove the splotchy surface appearance of genuinely ancient sculptures.

ANSWER: This looks good, because it describes a reason a genuine antique might have ended up with the fake-looking surface.

(C) Museum officials believe that forgers have no technique that can convincingly simulate the patchy weathering characteristic of the surfaces of ancient sculptures.

PROBLEM: This would strengthen the argument slightly, because it implies that the uneven weathering is always going to be genuine.

(D) An allegedly Roman Sculpture with a uniform surface similar to that of the statue being offered to the museum was recently shown to be a forgery.

PROBLEM: This strengthens the argument pretty straightforwardly.

Hope that helps!

-t
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews