GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 23 Sep 2019, 13:35

### 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

# A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 325
Location: united states
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 24 Mar 2016, 09:54
20
112
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

53% (01:38) correct 47% (01:49) wrong based on 3876 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509. It cannot have been painted earlier than 1507 because one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until that year. It cannot have been painted after 1509 because it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in that year.

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

A) No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.

B) Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.

C) The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507.

D) The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age.

E) Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509.

_________________
for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..

Originally posted by shoonya on 06 Aug 2006, 11:35.
Last edited by bb on 24 Mar 2016, 09:54, edited 4 times in total.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9647
Location: Pune, India
Re: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2013, 21:48
14
3
2flY wrote:
gmattokyo wrote:
I'll go with A
No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.
- Michelangelo abandoned the pigment used to make the paint (not the paint) because cheaper version was available. There is no mention that he stopped using the existing stock. If he has spent a lot making a stock of paint, he'll use that

These were my thoughts. However, this seems to be wrong...

Yes, the reason this option is option (A) is that it is tempting to jump to it right away. But it is incorrect.

The problem here is that the option says 'No stocks existed after 1509'.
We don't need to assume that. Recall that the argument says that Michelangelo stopped using the pigment, not that the pigment was not manufactured after 1509. It is immaterial whether stock of the pigment existed after 1509. We know that Michelangelo abandoned the use of the pigment after 1509.

Look at the argument:
- The painting must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509.
- Not earlier than 1507 because one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until that year.
- Not after 1509 because it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in 1509.

The argument clearly tells us that Michelangelo abandoned the use of the pigment in 1509. Whether he had stocks of it or not, he abandoned its use in 1509. The argument seems pretty good fit except for one thing - it says that the painting must have been COMPLETED within 1507 to 1509. That's the folly of the argument. Based on the premises, we can say for sure that he painted it during this time frame. We cannot say whether he completed it during this time.
He could have painted it over many years which would include the time frame of 1507 - 1509. When we say that he completed it before 1509, we are assuming that he did the painting in a matter of a few weeks or months, not over many years.

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 325
Location: united states
Re: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2006, 15:57
5
1
the OA is B. This question is from MGMAT's GMAT test 2. The OE is attached below:

The conclusion of the argument is that Michelangelo must have completed the painting between 1507 and 1509. The basis for that claim is that the painting depicts a coin that did not exist before 1507 and that it contains a pigment that Michelangelo ceased using in 1509. We are asked to find an assumption that completes the logic of this argument.

Choice A is incorrect. We do not need to assume that no stocks of the pigment existed after 1509. The argument is concerned only with the year in which Michelangelo stopped using the pigment.

Choice B is correct. In order to conclude that the painting must have been completed before 1509 on the basis of the pigment, we must assume that he did not begin the painting before 1509 using the old pigment and complete the painting after 1509 with the new pigment.

Choice C is incorrect. The fact that the general public knew of the coin in 1507 is irrelevant to the conclusion.

Choice D is incorrect. The fact that the panel cannot be tested for age does not relate to either the coin or the pigment, the two bases for the conclusion.

Choice E is incorrect. Whether Michelangelo's painting style changed during this period does not relate to either the coin or the pigment.
_________________
for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..
##### General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Location: Boston
Re: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2006, 08:25
4
'B'

'A' says that "No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509". The question is not whether there were any stocks of the pigment available after 1509, it is whether michaelangelo used it or not. And the CR says that "it is known that MA did not use this pigment after 1509".

So I think 'A' assumption is not valid.

What is the OA and OE?
_________________
Good is the greatest enemy of great.
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 787
Re: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2012, 06:41
1
vikky267 wrote:
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have
been completed after 1507 but before 1509. It cannot have been painted
earlier than 1507 because one of its central figures carries a coin that was
not minted until that year. It cannot have been painted after 1509 because it
contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a
cheaper alternative became available in that year. Which of the following is
an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.

B) Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.

C) The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507.

D) The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age.

E) Michelangelo’s painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509.

Assumptions fit in the logical gap between premises and the conclusion. Here the conclusion is that the painting must have been COMPLETED 1507-1509. Premises are 1 - the coin inclluded that was minted in 1507 and 2 - Pigment used that M. was KNOWN to abandon in 1509.

A - Existence of pigment is irrelevant because the premise says he was known to abandon the pigment regardless of its existence
B - The conclusion discusses the paintings COMPLETION, so you are assuming that if it contained pigment abandonded in 1509 it was also completed that year. You can also try negation here: Michealangelo DID work on the painting over the course of several years. The negated assumption destroys the conclusion, making it a necessary assumption.
D - Wooden panel age is out of scope.
E - M's painting style is not discussed in the argument therefore it is also out of scope.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 787
Re: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2012, 16:48
Quote:
Y not E because author is concluding that painting has to be done between 1507 & 1509 and if my painting style didn't changed in between these years it did use minted coin in 1507 and adhesive use in 1509. All i am saying is this is the only option that tries to cover the gap between 1507 & 1509. Option B does not specifically mention the time frame

E is a tempting choice because it specifically mentions the years in question, but you need to remember that the purpose of the assumption is to bridge the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion. The premises do not discuss his painting style, only the coin and the pigment, so information about the painting style doesn't bridge the gap between premises and conclusion.

Part of the reason why answer choice B is tricky, though correct, is that it doesn't specifically mention either the coin or pigment. However, the length of time spent painting does directly relate to the pigment premise. If he started the painting in 1508 he would be using the old pigment, but if the painting took several years to finish he wouldn't have COMPLETED it until sometime after 1509. For our conclusion to be true (the painting was completed before the end of 1509) we have to assume that he started after 1507 and completed it before 1509, as option B states.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 787
Re: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2012, 20:20
2
Quote:
Great Explanation ! +1 Kudos !!!
Kindly put some more light on - Assumption Negation !
It would help many of us here who are still scratching their heads after knowing that why (B) is the right answer.

Negation is a powerful technique for confirming that a statement is an assumption of the argument. The fundamental concept behind negation is that a statement is an assumption of the argument if it must be true for the conclusion to be true. Expanding on that concept, the "negative" version a necessary assumption INVALIDATES the conclusion. To test a statement to see if it's an assumption, assume that the negative version of the statement is true (negate the assumption) and see if the conclusion has been invalidated. It's a great cross-check on trickly CR questions.

The hardest part of negation is learning how to create the negative (or inverted) version of a sentence. In this problem, creating the negative isn't difficult at all. Michaelangelo did not work...Michaelangel DID work (inverted/negated). On this problem you see that the negated version of the assumption invalidates the conclusion, so it is a necessary assumption to the conclusion.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2852
Re: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Feb 2013, 06:03
5
1
mun23 wrote:
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509. It cannot have been painted earlier than 1507 because one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until that year. It cannot have been painted after 1509 because it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in that year.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A)No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.
(B)Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.
(C)The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507.
(D)The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age.
(E)Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509.
Need explanation................

Hi,

Let's first identify the elements of the argument:

Conclusion: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509
Premise 1: one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until 1507
Premise 2: it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in 1509

Pre-thinking (guessing) an assumption in this argument does not seem easy. So, instead of banging the head on pre-thinking, lets move to the option statements:

(A)No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509. - This does support the conclusion. If no pigment existed after 1509 and the painting contained this pigment, it strengthens that the painting was completed before 1509. However, does this statement necessarily need to be true for the conclusion to hold? (Remember an assumption has to be true for the conclusion to hold) The answer is No. Even if pigments existed after 1509, it doesn't break down the conclusion. If Michelangelo abandoned these pigments in 1509, then it does not really affect the conclusion whether these pigments existed or not. So, this is not a must be true statement and thus, Incorrect.

(B)Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years. - I like these kind of negated statements i.e. statements which have "not", "never" kind of words, statements which rather than presenting a possibility, eliminate one possibility. I always deal with these statements by working with their original statements, which these statements negate. So, in the given scenario, I think what would happen if "Michelangelo did work on the painting over the course of several years." - Oh... If this is so, my conclusion would fall apart. How? Because then I cannot say that the painting must have been completed before 1509 because Michelangelo might have used the pigment before 1509 but since as per given statement, he worked over several years, he might have finished in 1510 or 1511 or even later. Thus, negation of the given statement brings the argument down. Therefore, this is an assumption. Correct

(C)The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507. - This does not impact the conclusion. Whether it was known in 1507 or not, the conclusion that the painting was made after 1507 does not get impacted. Incorrect.

(D)The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age. - This is funny. On reading this, you should ask "So what?". This has no relevance to the argument. Incorrect

(E)Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509. - This is in negative form. So, I think what if "Michelangelo's painting style did change between 1507 and 1509" - I find that even if it changed it does not really harm the conclusion. Incorrect.

Hope this helps

Let me know if any further clarity is needed.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________
Marshall & McDonough Moderator
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1679
Location: India

### Show Tags

20 Oct 2015, 20:11
We have two pieces of evidence
Before 1507 - Coin was not minted
Pigment - abandoned by Michaelangelo in 1509 because of a cheaper alternative.

Prethink: Michaelangelo started the painting after 1507 and completed it before the pigment was abandoned by him in 1509

B matches our prethinking.

Negate B -> Michelangelo worked on the painting over the course of several years. Conveys that he might have started the work before 1507 when the pigment was available and ended his work after 1509 when the coin was available. Thus negating B shatters the conclusion.

Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2862
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2016, 10:42
1
Karthic26 wrote:
Can any kind-hearted soul explain to me why option C is wrong. According to me if the coin is not known to the people who were during the period after 1507 then it weakens the statement, I tried to negate the statement and I found it was weakening the statement. But the best contenders were Option B and Option C, of the two I shall choose option C

Negating option C does not break down the argument. Suppose the general public did NOT know about the coin - this does not imply that the painting was done BEFORE 1507. At most, it may imply that the painting was done AFTER 1507, if one considers that Michael Angelo is one among the general public. So negating C at most supports the argument, not opposes - hence cannot be an assumption.
Senior RC Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 3843
GPA: 3.39
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2018, 06:35
shoonya wrote:
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509. It cannot have been painted earlier than 1507 because one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until that year. It cannot have been painted after 1509 because it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in that year.

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

A) No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.

B) Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.

C) The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507.

D) The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age.

E) Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509.

Hi Bunuel

This question is not from OG 2016. i think it is mistakenly added into the OG 2016 in CR Question # 8. In Fact this is the real question #8 (in the link below) from OG 2016 in whose place this quoted question is mistakenly posted

https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-newly-disc ... 01746.html

kindly correct it in OG 2016 Directly CR Question # 8.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 03 Mar 2018
Posts: 206
Re: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2019, 10:35
shoonya wrote:
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509. It cannot have been painted earlier than 1507 because one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until that year. It cannot have been painted after 1509 because it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in that year.

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

A) No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.

B) Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.

C) The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507.

D) The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age.

E) Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509.

OE
(1) Identify the Question Type

The question stem asks what would be most useful in evaluating the argument, so this is an Evaluate the Argument question.

(2) Deconstruct the Argument

The author claims that the painting in question must have been completed between 1507 and 1509. What support is there for this claim? The part about 1507 seems fairly reasonable. How could Michelangelo paint a coin that did not exist yet? However, it’s possible that Michelangelo had advance notice of what the new coin would look like. Perhaps he was shown the design in advance. He might even have designed the coin himself!

The second restriction makes sense, too. If Michelangelo abandoned the pigment in 1509, then it shouldn’t show up on his paintings after that point. However, this argument is specifically about when the painting was completed. Perhaps Michelangelo started with the old pigment and then finished in 1510 or later with the cheaper pigment.

(3) State the Goal

In an Evaluate the Argument question, the goal is to choose a question or piece of information that would make it easier to determine if the conclusion is valid. In this case, information about either of the two limiting dates would be useful. Did Michelangelo have advance notice about the coin? Did he start in one year and finish later?

(4) Work from Wrong to Right

(A) An answer of “yes” to this one might seem to cause trouble for the argument. Maybe Michelangelo still had the chance to use the more expensive pigment after 1509. However, the premise states definitively that Michelangelo abandoned that pigment sometime in 1509, and you do not want to contradict the premise! This answer choice would be helpful if the premise had said that the pigment was no longer produced, but that’s not the issue. The pigment may well have been around after 1509, but Michelangelo wasn’t using it.

(B) CORRECT. This addresses the 1509 side of the conclusion. If Michelangelo worked on the painting for several years, he might have started with the more expensive pigment and then finished in 1510 or later with a different pigment. However, if he did not work on the painting for several years, then he must have completed it in 1509 or earlier, since he stopped using the expensive pigment after that year.

(C) This is an interesting question, but it does not help to evaluate the conclusion. An answer of “yes” wouldn’t impact the argument at all, as it’s already clear that Michelangelo knew of the coin—he painted it! An answer of “no” would make it less likely that Michelangelo had seen the coin even in 1507, but if anything, this would just narrow the range further (maybe the coin became well known in 1508 or 1509).

(D) It would certainly be helpful to test the painting for age. However, notice that like all of the answer choices in this problem, (D) is a yes/no question. A yes/no answer by itself won’t help you to evaluate the author’s conclusion. “Yes” just means that the claim can be tested scientifically, and “no” means that it can’t. In order to evaluate, you would need to know the results of such a test!

(E) This question is out of scope. The argument dates the painting between 1507 and 1509. Knowing that Michelangelo’s style changed in that same period wouldn’t make it any easier to tell if the painting was completed before 1507 (in the old style) or after 1509 (in the new style).
_________________
SVP
Status: It's near - I can see.
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Posts: 1689
Location: India
GPA: 3.01
WE: Engineering (Real Estate)
Re: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jan 2019, 03:55
1
shoonya wrote:
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509. It cannot have been painted earlier than 1507 because one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until that year. It cannot have been painted after 1509 because it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in that year.

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

A) No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.

B) Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.

C) The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507.

D) The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age.

E) Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509.

My only question regarding the right answer is " Why two years (1507 to 1509) can't be considered several years.
_________________
"Do not watch clock; Do what it does. KEEP GOING."
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2018
Posts: 170
Re: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2019, 23:51
egmat wrote:
mun23 wrote:
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509. It cannot have been painted earlier than 1507 because one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until that year. It cannot have been painted after 1509 because it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in that year.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A)No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.
(B)Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.
(C)The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507.
(D)The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age.
(E)Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509.
Need explanation................

Hi,

Let's first identify the elements of the argument:

Conclusion: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509
Premise 1: one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until 1507
Premise 2: it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in 1509

Pre-thinking (guessing) an assumption in this argument does not seem easy. So, instead of banging the head on pre-thinking, lets move to the option statements:

(A)No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509. - This does support the conclusion. If no pigment existed after 1509 and the painting contained this pigment, it strengthens that the painting was completed before 1509. However, does this statement necessarily need to be true for the conclusion to hold? (Remember an assumption has to be true for the conclusion to hold) The answer is No. Even if pigments existed after 1509, it doesn't break down the conclusion. If Michelangelo abandoned these pigments in 1509, then it does not really affect the conclusion whether these pigments existed or not. So, this is not a must be true statement and thus, Incorrect.

(B)Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years. - I like these kind of negated statements i.e. statements which have "not", "never" kind of words, statements which rather than presenting a possibility, eliminate one possibility. I always deal with these statements by working with their original statements, which these statements negate. So, in the given scenario, I think what would happen if "Michelangelo did work on the painting over the course of several years." - Oh... If this is so, my conclusion would fall apart. How? Because then I cannot say that the painting must have been completed before 1509 because Michelangelo might have used the pigment before 1509 but since as per given statement, he worked over several years, he might have finished in 1510 or 1511 or even later. Thus, negation of the given statement brings the argument down. Therefore, this is an assumption. Correct

(C)The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507. - This does not impact the conclusion. Whether it was known in 1507 or not, the conclusion that the painting was made after 1507 does not get impacted. Incorrect.

(D)The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age. - This is funny. On reading this, you should ask "So what?". This has no relevance to the argument. Incorrect

(E)Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509. - This is in negative form. So, I think what if "Michelangelo's painting style did change between 1507 and 1509" - I find that even if it changed it does not really harm the conclusion. Incorrect.

Hope this helps

Let me know if any further clarity is needed.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509. It cannot have been painted earlier than 1507 because one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until that year. It cannot have been painted after 1509 because it contains only pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in that year.

Because now there is no question of using new cheaper pigment. What could be the possible assumptions??
Re: A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo   [#permalink] 18 Mar 2019, 23:51
Display posts from previous: Sort by