It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 17 Jan 2017, 10:41

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 555
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 351 [0], given: 2

It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2008, 10:56
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two or three hundred years ago, especially one without a signature or with a questionably authentic signature, is indubitably the work of this or that particular artist. This fact gives the traditional attribution of a disputed painting special weight, since that attribution carries the presumption of historical continuity. Consequently, an art historian arguing for a deattribution will generally convince other art historians only if he or she can persuasively argue for a specific reattribution.
Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the position that the traditional attribution of a disputed painting should not have special weight?
(A) Art dealers have always been led by economic self-interest to attribute any unsigned paintings of merit to recognized masters rather than to obscure artists.
(B) When a painting is originally created, there are invariably at least some eyewitnesses who see the artist at work, and thus questions of correct attribution cannot arise at that time.
(C) There are not always clearly discernible differences between the occasional inferior work produced by a master and the very best work produced by a lesser talent.
(D) Attribution can shape perception inasmuch as certain features that would count as marks of greatness in a master’s work would be counted as signs of inferior artistry if a work were attributed to a minor artist.
(E) Even though some masters had specialists assist them with certain detail work, such as depicting lace, the resulting works are properly attributed to the masters alone.
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2008, 11:39
A very tough one, but between A and D, i chose A.
Current Student
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 416
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2011
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2008, 11:41

Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 555
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 351 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2008, 11:51
hmm I choose D. First of all, I could not understand what the hell the question is asking ..
any simple explanation is appreciated.
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2989
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 579 [0], given: 210

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2008, 16:34
Between C and D - I go for D.
saravalli wrote:
It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two or three hundred years ago, especially one without a signature or with a questionably authentic signature, is indubitably the work of this or that particular artist. This fact gives the traditional attribution of a disputed painting special weight, since that attribution carries the presumption of historical continuity. Consequently, an art historian arguing for a deattribution will generally convince other art historians only if he or she can persuasively argue for a specific reattribution.
Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the position that the traditional attribution of a disputed painting should not have special weight?
(A) Art dealers have always been led by economic self-interest to attribute any unsigned paintings of merit to recognized masters rather than to obscure artists. [irrelevant]
(B) When a painting is originally created, there are invariably at least some eyewitnesses who see the artist at work, and thus questions of correct attribution cannot arise at that time. [irrelevant]
(C) There are not always clearly discernible differences between the occasional inferior work produced by a master and the very best work produced by a lesser talent. [hmm interesting but not relevant]
(D) Attribution can shape perception inasmuch as certain features that would count as marks of greatness in a master’s work would be counted as signs of inferior artistry if a work were attributed to a minor artist. [Wow a tough read but seems to make sense upon reading a fifth time]
(E) Even though some masters had specialists assist them with certain detail work, such as depicting lace, the resulting works are properly attributed to the masters alone. [ doesn't support ]
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 206
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2008, 10:26
saravalli wrote:
It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two or three hundred years ago, especially one without a signature or with a questionably authentic signature, is indubitably the work of this or that particular artist. This fact gives the traditional attribution of a disputed painting special weight, since that attribution carries the presumption of historical continuity. Consequently, an art historian arguing for a deattribution will generally convince other art historians only if he or she can persuasively argue for a specific reattribution.
Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the position that the traditional attribution of a disputed painting should not have special weight?
(A) Art dealers have always been led by economic self-interest to attribute any unsigned paintings of merit to recognized masters rather than to obscure artists.
(B) When a painting is originally created, there are invariably at least some eyewitnesses who see the artist at work, and thus questions of correct attribution cannot arise at that time.
(C) There are not always clearly discernible differences between the occasional inferior work produced by a master and the very best work produced by a lesser talent.
(D) Attribution can shape perception inasmuch as certain features that would count as marks of greatness in a master’s work would be counted as signs of inferior artistry if a work were attributed to a minor artist.
(E) Even though some masters had specialists assist them with certain detail work, such as depicting lace, the resulting works are properly attributed to the masters alone.

I htink the answer is A. The traditional attribution that the stem is referring to is the signature. If as in stated in A) that the art dealers have always been led by economic self interest to attribute any unsigned paintings, then the traditional attribution should not carry weight. For me, I feel that C is slightly out of scope - does it matter if there are discernible differences between the paintings of different artists? Even if there are discernible differences, the issue regarding the traditional attribution is still not resolved.
Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 555
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 351 [1] , given: 2

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2008, 10:54
1
KUDOS
bsd_lover wrote:
Between C and D - I go for D.
saravalli wrote:
It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two or three hundred years ago, especially one without a signature or with a questionably authentic signature, is indubitably the work of this or that particular artist. This fact gives the traditional attribution of a disputed painting special weight, since that attribution carries the presumption of historical continuity. Consequently, an art historian arguing for a deattribution will generally convince other art historians only if he or she can persuasively argue for a specific reattribution.
Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the position that the traditional attribution of a disputed painting should not have special weight?
(A) Art dealers have always been led by economic self-interest to attribute any unsigned paintings of merit to recognized masters rather than to obscure artists. [irrelevant]
(B) When a painting is originally created, there are invariably at least some eyewitnesses who see the artist at work, and thus questions of correct attribution cannot arise at that time. [irrelevant]
(C) There are not always clearly discernible differences between the occasional inferior work produced by a master and the very best work produced by a lesser talent. [hmm interesting but not relevant]
(D) Attribution can shape perception inasmuch as certain features that would count as marks of greatness in a master’s work would be counted as signs of inferior artistry if a work were attributed to a minor artist. [Wow a tough read but seems to make sense upon reading a fifth time]
(E) Even though some masters had specialists assist them with certain detail work, such as depicting lace, the resulting works are properly attributed to the masters alone. [ doesn't support ]

OA says A. can we discuss more..I choose D..

Can anyone comment on the strike rate required in LSAT- CR1000 to face the real GMAT comfortably?
I am unable to cross 16/25 mark since past ONE month.
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2989
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 579 [0], given: 210

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2008, 15:17
Hi is the source for this LSAT CR 1000 ? It seems a rather oddball CR with weird reasoning and some tough jargon. I dont anticipate a real gmat CR to be this tough.
Re: CR-Painting   [#permalink] 17 Apr 2008, 15:17
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Our work proves to be very successful. In the past three 3 18 Aug 2009, 08:22
2 It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two 9 01 Jul 2009, 01:19
It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two 3 24 Jul 2008, 19:06
It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two 2 24 Jul 2008, 14:55
It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two 13 11 Mar 2007, 03:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by