Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 27 Aug 2014, 21:16

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 560
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two [#permalink] New post 16 Apr 2008, 10:56
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-Painting [#permalink] New post 16 Apr 2008, 11:39
A very tough one, but between A and D, i chose A.
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 416
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2011
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR-Painting [#permalink] New post 16 Apr 2008, 11:41
Answer is A.

Self-interest of dealers is a potential weakness in a traditional attribution.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 560
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR-Painting [#permalink] New post 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
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2995
Followers: 55

Kudos [?]: 430 [0], given: 210

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR-Painting [#permalink] New post 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
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 206
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR-Painting [#permalink] New post 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.
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 560
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 91 [1] , given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR-Painting [#permalink] New post 17 Apr 2008, 10:54
1
This post received
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
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2995
Followers: 55

Kudos [?]: 430 [0], given: 210

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR-Painting [#permalink] New post 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 Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two vaivish1723 9 01 Jul 2009, 01:19
It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two vksunder 2 24 Jul 2008, 14:55
It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two vineetgupta 13 11 Mar 2007, 03:53
It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two WinWinMBA 5 26 May 2005, 11:22
It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two doggita 5 07 Dec 2004, 20:01
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.