When storing Renaissance oil paintings, museums conform to standards

REASON for D:-
the author talks of only paint used in Renaissance oil paintings not getting spoilt anf then comes to his conclusion.... paintings do constitute of various other components like the material on which it is made, canvas wood etc....but author does not talk of all these..... so he must have assumed that 'None of the materials in Renaissance oil paintings other than the paint are vulnerable enough to relatively wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity to cause damage to the paintings.'

OA is D.....but can anyone explain whats wrong with A......

A says Renaissance paintings "were created" with more fluctuations..however the argument is not concerned about the conditions that were prevalent at the the time of creation .the assumption that since the paintings have endured extreme conditions at the time of creation they will endure the conditions NOW is not correct...A is not MUST for the conclusion to be true..it may be true or may not be

can anybody explain what is wrong with 'B'.

I would say B is wrong because although the assumption itself is correct, it does not relate to the argument's assumption. It would not be the *best* answer.

Sure abhi. The argument is that since paint on the paintings is unaffected by changes in temperature & humidity the museum should relax their standards & save money. Only D touches both points. If the system was in place for proctecting something besides paint then the claim that they should relax standards is significantly weakened. Kudos if that makes sense

This one was a bit confusing at first because of the wording of D.
I was unsure and picked B as well. However " paint is the most sensitive substance in these works" is not a position taken on by the argument. The argument being that museum directors should not be rash ...
D is right because the first part is easily "yes" that's true. but the second part of D answer choice is referring to the position in the first part not the position of what the author had in mind.

On regarding question,now i came to know about storing Renaissance oil paintings carefully with some essential instructions discussed on this forum. I want to know about the rarely shown "Michelangelo paintings"

1. Renaissance paintings were created in conditions involving far greater fluctuations in temperature and humidity than those permitted by current standards. --- The issue is about maintenance not creation—out of scope.

2. Under the current standards that museums use when storing Renaissance oil paintings, those paintings do not deteriorate at all. --- do not at all is extreme;

3. Museum collections typically do not contain items that are more likely to be vulnerable to fluctuations in temperature and humidity than Renaissance oil paintings. ---- Reference to museum paintings in general is irrelevant to the discussions here.
4. None of the materials in Renaissance oil paintings other than the paint are vulnerable enough to relatively wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity to cause damage to the paintings. – We can easily assume this, since if the other items were vulnerable, then the paintings cannot stand. Remember the proverb that a chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

5. Most Renaissance oil paintings are stored in museums located in regions near the regions where the paintings were created.—Location of creation is not the concern.

When storing Renaissance oil paintings, museums conform to standards that call for careful control of the surrounding temperature and humidity, with variations confined within narrow margins. Maintaining this environment is very costly, and recent research shows that even old oil paint is unaffected by wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity. Therefore, museums could relax their standards and save money without endangering their Renaissance oil paintings.

Conclusion : museums could relax their standards and save money without endangering their Renaissance oil paintings.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Renaissance paintings were created in conditions involving far greater fluctuations in temperature and humidity than those permitted by current standards.
B. Under the current standards that museums use when storing Renaissance oil paintings, those paintings do not deteriorate at all.
C. Museum collections typically do not contain items that are more likely to be vulnerable to fluctuations in temperature and humidity than Renaissance oil paintings.
D. None of the materials in Renaissance oil paintings other than the paint are vulnerable enough to relatively wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity to cause damage to the paintings.CORRECT ANSWER
NEGATION:ALL THE MATERIAL IN RENAISANCE OIL PAINTINGS OTHER THAN THE PAINT ARE VULNERABLE ENOUGH TO RELATIVELY WIDE FLUCTUATIONS IN TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE PAINTINGS
The negation destroys the conclusion.
E. Most Renaissance oil paintings are stored in museums located in regions near the regions where the paintings were created.

HOPEFULLY I HAVE USED THE RIGHT TECHNIQUE OF NEGATION.

When storing Renaissance oil paintings, museums conform to standards that call for careful control of the surrounding temperature and humidity, with variations confined within narrow margins. Maintaining this environment is very costly, and recent research shows that even old oil paint is unaffected by wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity. Therefore, museums could relax their standards and save money without endangering their Renaissance oil paintings.

Type - assumption
Boil it down - Since old oil paint is unaffected by wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity , museums could relax their standards and save money without endangering their Renaissance oil paintings.
Pre-thinking - There is nothing else in oil paintings that is susceptible to fluctuations in temperature and humidity

D. None of the materials in Renaissance oil paintings other than the paint are vulnerable enough to relatively wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity to cause damage to the paintings.
Correct answer

Conclusion :- "museums could relax their standards and save money without endangering their Renaissance oil paintings".

Option D :-
"None of the materials in Renaissance oil paintings other than the paint are vulnerable enough to relatively wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity to cause damage to the paintings".

Negating D :-
"Some of the materials in Renaissance oil paintings other than the paint are vulnerable enough to relatively wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity to cause damage to the paintings".{So, If there are some materials that are vulnerable enough and can destroy painting then obviously museums could not relax with their standards and save money invalidating the conclusion}.


A. Renaissance paintings were created in conditions involving far greater fluctuations in temperature and humidity than those permitted by current standards.
Incorrect : Comparison between conditions in which painting were made and painting are stored only helps to strengthen the argument but it is certainly not an assumption.

B. Under the current standards that museums use when storing Renaissance oil paintings, those paintings do not deteriorate at all.
Incorrect : If this answer choice is negated it does not weaken the argument. Eliminated.

C. Museum collections typically do not contain items that are more likely to be vulnerable to fluctuations in temperature and humidity than Renaissance oil paintings.
Incorrect : Issue is only about renaissance oil paintings. Other items in the museum are irrelevant to the scope of the argument.

D. None of the materials in Renaissance oil paintings other than the paint are vulnerable enough to relatively wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity to cause damage to the paintings.
Correct : The author takes into account only OIL PAINT in OIL PAINTINGS to come to the conclusion that museums should relax its standards for control of tempt. and humidity. The author fails to take into account other things (frame, canvas etc) that also are a part of a painting which needs protection. This is the underlying assumption on which the argument depends.

E. Most Renaissance oil paintings are stored in museums located in regions near the regions where the paintings were created.
Incorrect : Regions where paintings were created and paintings are stored is clearly irrelevant here.

Negating B:
Under the current standards that museums use when storing Renaissance oil paintings, those paintings do deteriorate [at list a little].
Negated B is definitely a weakener, in view it might even destroy the argument (the paintings are endangered) but D is, indeed, way more straightforward.
Any comments?

The point to be noted is, per the passage,that even old oil paint is unaffected by wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity.

Old oil Paints are unaffected.. OLD.. Therefore Renaissance paints are not "that old"...
D states None of the materials in Renaissance oil paintings other than the paint are vulnerable enough to relatively wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity to cause damage to the paintings. Adding both together makes the conclusion believable.

When storing Renaissance oil paintings, museums conform to standards that call for careful control of the surrounding temperature and humidity, with variations confined within narrow margins. Maintaining this environment is very costly, and recent research shows that even old oil paint is unaffected by wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity. Therefore, museums could relax their standards and save money without endangering their Renaissance oil paintings.

The argument is that museums could relax their standards and save money without endangering the oil paintings.
This is based on the facts of a recent study showing that even old oil paint is unaffected by wide fluctuations in temp and humidity.

We are asked to find a statement that must be true in order for the argument to be true.
A is false - conditions upon creation aren't relevant to conditions now.
B is what i incorrectly chose -
Under the current standards that museums use when storing Renaissance oil paintings, those paintings do not deteriorate at all. Therefore museums could relax their standards and save money without endangering oil paintings.

^This is B slotted into the argument.
I guess I could see how this may not be an assumption now. If the current standards maintain the art, then a drop in standards could potentially deteriorate the art. Secondly, if even under the current standards the art does deteriorate, who knows whether the art will deteriorate further if standards are dropped. Thus logically it may not necessarily be true that the paintings do not deteriorate at all right now.

Obviously things are easier to see in the post-mortem.

C is completely irrelevant to oil painting deterioration.

D - Slotted in below.
None of the materials in Renaissance oil paintings other than the paint are vulnerable enough to relatively wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity to cause damage to the paintings. And since we NOW know that the oil paint won't deteriorate (based on a recent study) we can conclude that museums could relax their standards and save money without endangering oil.


E obviously doesn't need to be true.

Hi,

Could someone kindly review my explanation for this question? I got this wrong, but I just want to validate whether I understood this correctly.

A. The author does not assume A
B.This is not an assumption.This method of presevation is clearly stated in the stimulus and these are the standards the author wants relaxed.
C. We are talking of Renaissance paintings not museum artefacts in general
D. Now the author says the oil can withstand extremeties in humidity and temperatiure but doesn't mention whether the other materials used in the painting can too. He clearly assumes this
E. Nonsense and does not address the argument