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

The important thing to notice here is that we are asked by the question to weaken this argument by attacking a specific premise, that the traditional attribution should carry special weight. And as we're given the reason why it does carry that special weight (presumed historical continuity), we should also know how to attack it: eliminate the presumption or value of historical continuity. So our correct answer choice will somehow do this.

Answer choice (A): Art dealers have always been shady and willing to bump up a painting's value by misattributing its provenance to more famous (and lucrative) origins. This seems to fit; if art dealers of the past were willing to lie to increase the sales price, then historical continuity isn't particularly valuable and could be questioned, as the very first sale could have been based on a lie. A Contender.

Answer choice (B): Claims that at the time of creation, witnesses exist to that creation. This would serve to bolster the importance of historical continuity, and serve to strengthen, not weaken, the value of traditional attribution. Immediate Loser.

Answer choice (C): It's difficult to tell who painted a painting just by looking at the work itself. If anything, this would make the historical continuity more important, by making present-day evaluations less reliable. Loser.

Answer choice (D): Difficult to parse on first glance, but is actually saying that attribution determines how highly critics think of attributes of a painting. The difference in a 3-year-old flinging paint against a wall versus a Jackson Pollock drip painting comes to mind. None of that matters to what we're being asked to do, which is to make traditional attribution less important. Irrelevant to the question, so also a Loser.

Answer choice (E): Again, difficult to parse, but ultimately irrelevant. This answer choice is dealing with attribution when assistants work on a painting alongside the recognized painter; we're concerned with the recognized painters, not giving assistants credit on painting they helped create. Loser.

So by process of elimination, (A) is the correct answer choice, as it is the only one that directly attacks the historical continuity that grants traditional attribution special weight.

In tackling this question, I placed “special weight” on the phrase “historical continuity”. Initially, I hovered between A, D, and E because I could not reason out. It took me some time before I finally got to the kernel of the argument.

After mumbling the following, “the traditional attribution should not have special weight because… the traditional attribution should not have special weight because… the traditional attribution should not have special weight because …” suddenly came to me the following: “…because something happened in the past that broke historical continuity.”

Then, I looked at choice A again. Serendipitously, my mind forged a connection. “Historical continuity was broken because economic interest drove dealers to wrongly attribute unsigned artworks to only recognized masters. That’s why we should not place special weight on the traditional attribution. The cloud of uncertainty faded.

Concl - The fact gives traditional attribution of a disputed painting special weight, since that attribution carries the presumption of historical continuity.
Premise - This fact >> is that it is difficult to prove painting unless there is authentic signature of the artist

Now, we need to support the position that traditional attribution SHOULD NOT have special weight ( or in reversal of terms, we need to weaken this argument)
The additional reasoning should help me to explain why there is no need to give such special weightage towards traditional attribution
B - Yes question of correct attribution doesnt arise, but it doesn't link to our argument here. What we are trying to find is a reasoning that can help us to say that there shldnt be special weightage for traditional attribution, and not why the attribution via signature etc isn't needed
C - This in fact may require traditional attribution, since if you can't discern the work... at least we know who is the original artist ( the recognized master )
D - Doesn't rly tell me what i need for the reasoning, but more on how attribution shapes perception.
E - This also explains why traditional attribution is needed, since we need to attribute work to the masters

A - This explains why weightage shldn't be given, since I can just attribute any painting to a master of influence, to generate profits. When it fact, the obscure artists could be the original owner.

Thus, A is the answer.

This question is rather atypical of a gmat argument though. Usually in a traditional weaken, you'll just need to directly weaken the argument and usually the gap inreasoning is rather related to the context. Thus, you are able to follow a structured way to get to your answer

The answer is more of pure logical thinking and intuition here, which is harder to hack.. In fact, this question surprisingly felt way easier than a gmat argument if i were to just purely use intuition and common sense.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.