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 24 Jan 2017, 02:44

### 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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2008, 19:06
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
you can ask an expert
New!
Director
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 518
Schools: Wharton
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 153 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Paintings [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2008, 20:02
x97agarwal 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 would go A.

A: Art dealers falsify attributions -- i.e., traditional attributions may have been falsified in order to increase financial gains by greedy parties
B: This would weaken the argument
D: Describes a consequence of attirbution, but this consequence does not tell us whether traditional attribution is a good or a bad thing.
E: Weakens argument
Intern
Joined: 04 Aug 2008
Posts: 3
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR: Paintings [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2008, 03:43
IMO D

VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1397
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 290 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Paintings [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2008, 18:08
x97agarwal 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. -> this sounds favourable since this says art dealers are driven by economic interests and hence dont attribute the paintings to right artists and hence the attribution is false and hence no special weight

(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. -> OOS we are talking about 200 years old paintings

(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. -> this is irrelevant we are not bothered about how difficult attribution is

(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. -> this apears close but says attributing to inferior artists makes the attributes bothers image of art masters but the attributes are decided by dealers hence depends upon them how good they are in judging the paintings.this is post impact.A wins.Its not always masters are good

(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. -> OOS

_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Re: CR: Paintings   [#permalink] 09 Aug 2008, 18:08
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 2 24 Jul 2008, 14:55
1 It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two 7 16 Apr 2008, 10:56
It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two 13 11 Mar 2007, 03:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 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®.