pawanCEO wrote:
A newly discovered painting seems to be the work of one of two seventeenth-century artists, either the northern German Johannes Drechen or the Frenchman Louis Birelle, who sometimes painted in the same style as Drechen. Analysis of the carved picture frame, which has been identified as the painting’s original seventeenth-century frame, showed that it is made of wood found widely in northern Germany at the time, but rare in the part of France where Birelle lived. This shows that the painting is most likely the work of Drechen.
Which of the following is an assumption that the argument requires?
(A) The frame was made from wood local to the region where the picture was painted.
(B) Drechen is unlikely to have ever visited the home region of Birelle in France.
(C) Sometimes a painting so resembles others of its era that no expert is able to confidently decide who painted it.
(D) The painter of the picture chose the frame for the picture.
(E) The carving style of the picture frame is not typical of any specific region of Europe.
Seventeenth-Century Painting
OG2019 Incorrectly states OA as "B" in the Answer Key. The explanation states that "A" is correct, however
Step 1: Identify the Question
The word assumption in the question stem shows that this is a Find the Assumption question.
Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument
Painting might be by D or B (B sometimes painted like D)
D = Germany, B = France
Picture frame is wood from Germany → D is the artist
There are two possible candidates for the creator of a particular painting. Based on where the picture’s frame likely came from, the author concludes that the artist came from the same location. Must it be the case that the artist and the picture frame came from the same location?
Step 3: Pause and State the Goal
On Assumption questions, the goal is to find an unstated fact that would have to be true in order for the logic of the argument to be reasonable. If this statement were false, the argument wouldn’t make logical sense.
Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right
(A) CORRECT. This must be true in order for the author’s reasoning to be sound. If the frame had instead been made from wood that originated elsewhere, the author couldn’t draw any connection between the frame’s origin and the painting’s origin.
(B) Since the painting was framed with German wood, not French, whether Drechen visited France is irrelevant. The argument already makes it clear that the painting was not framed with wood from France, regardless of who visited the area and who created the painting.
(C) This doesn’t have to be true in order for the logic of the argument to be reasonable. In fact, in order to accept the argument, it’s necessary to assume that it is possible to determine who created this particular painting with some degree of certainty.
(D) The artist didn’t necessarily have to choose the frame himself. Somebody else in the same geographic area, such as a local buyer, might have chosen the frame.
(E) It’s necessary to assume that the carving style wasn’t especially typical of France, or the argument’s reasoning would be damaged, since it would then be more likely that the frame was created in France. However, the author didn’t assume that the carving style wasn’t typical of any European region. It could have been typical of Germany, or of some other region in Europe outside of both artists’ areas, and the conclusion would still have been reasonable.
The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 2015Practice QuestionQuestion No.: CR 8 CR10671
OG 2019 ID: CR10731
Page: 504
A painting has been recently discovered. The author tells us that the work could be (not sure) of any one of two 17th century artists.
either the northern German Johannes DrechenThe painting could be the work of a German artist, Johannes Drechen
Or the Frenchman Louis Birelle, who sometimes painted in the same style as Drechen.Or it could be the work of a Frenchman, Louis Birelle.
The author gives us a fact: Birelle sometimes (note: not always) painted in the same style as Drechen. We are given to understand that the confusion regarding who the artist of the painting is, could be due to this occasional commonality in style.
Analysis of the carved picture frame, which has been identified as the painting’s original seventeenth-century frame,The carved picture frame was analyzed.
Fact: This picture frame is established to be the same 17th century frame in which the painting was originally framed.
showed that it is made of wood found widely in northern Germany at the time,Fact: The frame is made of a type of wood that was abundant in Northern Germany in the 17th century.
but rare in the part of France where Birelle lived.Fact: However, this particular type of wood was rarely found in the part of France where Birelle lived.
This shows that the painting is most likely the work of Drechen.Conclusion: The author makes a conclusion here. Because the original frame of the painting was made of wood found abundantly in Northern German, but rarely found in Birelle’s part of France, the painting is believed most likely to be the work of Drechen – since he was German.
Pre-thinkingFalsification QuestionIn what scenario Is it possible that the 17th century painting could be the work of Birelle and not Drechen?
Given that
- Birelle sometimes (note: not always) painted in the same style as Drechen
- This painting’s picture frame is established to be the same 17th century frame in which the painting was originally framed
- The frame is made of a type of wood that was abundant in Northern Germany in the 17th century
- This particular type of wood was rarely found in Birelle’s part of France
Thought ProcessLet us look at the author’s reasoning. He is unsure of who out of Birelle and Drechen is the artist of the painting. It is difficult to decide the workmanship. And the confusion is because Birelle sometimes painted in Drechen’s style. So now the author tries to ascertain the workmanship based on the material of the frame. It is the same frame in which the picture was originally framed. The author concludes that Drechen must have painted the piece because the wood of the frame was found abundantly in N. Germany and Drechen was also a German. Birelle was not the artist because that wood was a rarity in his part of France.
Falsification condition#1What if the painting was made in a region but not framed in the same region?
In that case, the painting could have been framed elsewhere and the wood of the frame could have come from that region.
Assumption#1The painting was framed in same the region to which the artist belonged and where he painted the particular piece.
Falsification condition#2What if the wood (that was not found in France) for the picture frame was imported from some other place (it was found widely in N. Germany)?
In that case, the painting could have been painted by Birelle and framed in France using the wood imported from N. Germany.
Assumption#2The wood from which the picture frame was made, had not been imported from outside the region where the picture was painted and framed.
AObserve our pre-thinking assumption#2. It says, “The wood from which the picture-frame was made, had not been imported from outside the region where the picture was painted and framed.”
Or in other words, the wood from which the picture-frame was made was wood that was locally sourced from the region where the picture was painted.
This is in-line with our pre-thinking and is the correct answer.
BDoes this option need to be definitely true for our conclusion to hold true? No. Drechen might have very well visited Birelle’s home region but what does that prove or disprove? We just know the date of the painting not its location, and therefore this option is irrelevant to our consideration.
Hence, this is not the answer.
CThis option is anyways out of the way as it is not the basis on which the author draws the conclusion. It is more of a circular argument as the passage already says that the painting could be the work of any one of two artists where one often painted in the other’s style.
Hence, it is not the correct choice.
DOnce again, would my conclusion break down if this option were not true? What if someone close to the painter chose the frame for him? Does that prove who the painter was or was not? Maybe Drechen’s friend chose the frame for the painting. But we don’t know in the first place whether Drechen painted it or not. Maybe Birelle’s wife chose the frame. But de we know whether Birelle painted it in the first place?
Hence, this is not the correct answer.
EIt is the material of the picture-frame that is being analyzed in order to ascertain the artist behind the painting. The carving style of the picture-frame is not the basis for the conclusion and therefore cannot be used to disprove or prove it.
Hence, this is not the correct choice.
Thank you for your helpful explanation. The other comments of using the negation technique on this question make sense, so I see why Choice A is the best answer. I was confused by A because the argument tells you that the "frame is made of wood found widely in northern Germany at the time, but rare in parts of France", so if it is found widely in northern Germany, how is that an assumption? To me, it seems to already be a fact.
close
21 May 2022, 19:19
