A newly discovered painting seems to be the work of one of two sevente

Solution
Passage Analysis

A newly discovered painting seems to be the work of one of two seventeenth-century artists,

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 Drechen

The 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-thinking
Falsification Question

In 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 Process

Let 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#1

What 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#1

The painting was framed in same the region to which the artist belonged and where he painted the particular piece.

Falsification condition#2

What 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#2

The wood from which the picture frame was made, had not been imported from outside the region where the picture was painted and framed.

A
Observe 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.

B
Does 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.

C
This 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.

D
Once 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.

E
It 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.

hi,
The reasoning given in D becomes an inherent part of A..
A says very clearly that the wood and place were from the same place..


this view does not stand in front of A and that is why A is better than D..

onclusion: This shows that the painting is most likely the work of Drechen.

beased on the premiste that the wood used for the frame is found in Germany but rare in france

Here the author might assume that the frame cannot be transported from Germany to France
or he might also think that frame used must be from painter's native place
or else French painter cannot come to Germany and use frame at germany

Option A matches our pre-thinking.
So A is correct

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?

Conclusion: Based on the fact that the original frame was made of wood found widely in northern Germany at the time, it has been concluded that Drechen painted the painting. We have to find what has been assumed by the author to come to this conclusion.

A. The frame was made from wood local to the region where the picture was painted. This option links the evidence to the conclusion. If the author is concluding that Drechen was the painter, he is obviously assuming that the frame was made from wood local to the region where the picture was painted. If we negate – The frame was not made from wood local to the region where the picture was painted. The author has concluded that the German painted the discovered painting based on the fact that the wood of the original frame was found widely in northern Germany. If this option is negated, the conclusion cannot be drawn.

B. Drechen is unlikely to have ever visited the home region of Birelle in France. Whether Drechen has visited France or not does not need to be assumed to conclude that Drechen was the painter.

C. Sometimes a painting so resembles others of its era that no expert is able to confidently decide who painted it. If no expert can confidently decide who pained the painting, then we cannot conclude that Drechen is the painter. This option does not lead to the conclusion.

D. The painter of the picture chose the frame for the picture. Who chose the frame is not relevant

E. The carving style of the picture frame is not typical of any specific region of Europe. The carving style is also not relevant.

- Nitha Jay

Hi can anyone explain why A is stronger choice than D? As D is also a plausible assumption because if the artist did not choose a frame then Brielle could have painted the painting and someone from Germany bought it and put a German frame around it.

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.

I chose A but I found the assumption very incomplete.

The author may assume:

1) Louis Birelle did not go to Germany to paint the painting.
2) The frame cannot be transported from Germany to France.
3) The painting was painted in the region where the author is native to.
4) The frame was made of wood local to the region where the painting was painted.

However, you cannot assume 4) unless you assume 3).

Your thoughts on the observations in bold will be greatly appreciated.

(A) The frame was made from wood local to the region where the picture was painted. If we negate the statement- The frame was made from wood NOT local to the region where the picture was painted.
The negated statement makes us believe that relying on the frame might not be useful to to know who painted the picture.
(B) Drechen is unlikely to have ever visited the home region of Birelle in France. Even if he visited, it doesn't really matter to us. We want to know if he got the frame and picture from there.
(C) Sometimes a painting so resembles others of its era that no expert is able to confidently decide who painted it. We are relying on the date of frame and not the similarity between two pictures.
(D) The painter of the picture chose the frame for the picture. What if Birelle chose the German frame. Can not be the assumption.
(E) The carving style of the picture frame is not typical of any specific region of Europe. It is given in the argument that frame belongs to Germany.

A is the answer

If I negate D it breaks the conclusion, as someone else might have put the frame. A is also a assumption but I am confused why it is better that D

The artist himself or someone else in the same location (e.g. a trainee or someone who exhibited the painting) might have chosen the frame. Option D is not is not a mandatory link between the premise and the conclusion - it can at most be a strengthening statement, but it does not satisfy "must be true" scenario required by an option to be qualified as an assumption.

Hi mikemcgarry or other experts,
I struggled with A and B, honestly speaking, I have confused why A is correct, although I picked up A

IMO, (A) The frame was made from wood local to the region where the picture was painted.
Choice A states that the wood of frame is the same region of the picture. so i can get that wood of frame came either Germany or France.
But the fact that wood of frame was found widely in Germany does not necessary mean the picture was from Germany , and that the region of wood is Germany does not necessary mean the picture was from Germany.
It is highly possible that the wood of the frame and picture were from France, but the frame was found widely in Germany.

So how could A be assumption.

(B) Drechen is unlikely to have ever visited the home region of Birelle in France.
Even Drechen never visited France, it is also entirely possible that Drechen used the frame from France, and wood that found widely in Germany actually came from France.

So I think B is not correct.

Genuinely want you help

thanks in advance

have a nice day
>_~

Premise: Wood found in Germay is used to frame the painting.
Conclusion: The painting was made in Germany.

What you are arguing in your post is that it is not correct to conclude that the painting was made in Germany, but the question is not about whether it is right or wrong to conclude so - if someone (the author) has already concluded so (as given in the passage), then what is his / her assumption is behind that conclusion ? Option A states an assumption behind that author's conclusion, linking the premise and conclusion mentioned above (it does not matter whether the conclusion is right or wrong).

In summary: It is not required to evaluate whether a premise used to conlude something is valid. The point is if someone uses a premise to arrive at a conclusion (rightly or wrongly), then what is that person's assumption linking the premise and conclusion.

OG2017, CR552, P512

Seventeenth-Century Painting
 
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.

I got this question wrong. Just thought to jot down my thoughts to have a better clarity. Was confused between A and D. Ended up marking D.

Premise: 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.

Conclusion: This shows that the painting is most likely the work of Drechen.

Pre-thinking: Wood is widely found in Germany, so the assumption is Drechen was the one who did the painting. The wood cannot be easily used in France(rare in part of France). So we need to look for an option which strengthens this fact and helps in solidifying the conclusion.

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.
[If the wood is not local, then the conclusion will fall apart because that would mean that the wood could have been obtained from anywhere. But the conclusion hinges on the fact that it is from Germany, and so it must have been locally procured. The wood is also rarely available in France, so it cannot be locally procured. So this seems a valid assumption]

B. Drechen is unlikely to have ever visited the home region of Birelle in France.
[Even if he has, this assumption will not confirm or deny the fact that Drechen did or did not do the painting - Eliminated ]

C. Sometimes a painting so resembles others of its era that no expert is able to confidently decide who painted it.
[in the premise it is mentioned that it seems to be a work of 17th century. Also, we are not concerned if it can be confidently determined or not. We need to find the assumption behind choosing Drechen, this cannot be the assumption. in fact, this weakens it.]

D. The painter of the picture chose the frame for the picture.
[Now here is where I made a mistake. I negated this statement and assumed that someone else chose it and thought this would definitely cast a doubt when negated and marked this as the answer. Now assuming that someone chose it, it actually does not cast any doubt that Drechen did not do it. In fact, this would not even confirm that Birelle did it. Had that been the case, we could have considered the option. Since negating the statement does not completely shatter the argument we can eliminate this option. ]

E. The carving style of the picture frame is not typical of any specific region of Europe.
[Again this cannot be the assumption, because even if it is not typical it does cast a doubt that Drechen did not do it - eliminated.]

Experts please help me with Option A and D. I am not able to reject D.

This is an assumption question, so we are looking for something that the argument needs in order to get to its conclusion. Option D says:

The painter of the picture chose the frame for the picture.

If we go for D, we're effectively saying that unless the painter himself chose the frame, the conclusion is not correct. But it is not necessary for the painter to have chosen the frame. Even if someone else in the same area chose the frame, the conclusion still stands.

Hi AjiteshArun in that sense , In option A it is very much possible that someone else has Painted the picture in Germany and then Person D in the passage used the woods locally for the frame. Does not it refute the argument ?

It seems that you've understood why A is correct. Just to be sure, let's go through the argument:

1. 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.

This tells us that there is some reason to think that the painting was the work of either JD (German) or LB (French). LB sometimes painted in the same style as JD, which is (presumably) the reason that the author is not sure about whether JD painted the painting or LB painted the painting.

2. 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 tells us that the frame is the original frame, and that it is made of wood that was common in ~Germany at that time, but was rare in ~France ("northern Germany" and "the part of France where Birelle lived").

3. This shows that the painting is most likely the work of Drechen.

The author uses (2) to "connect" the painting to Germany, "through" the frame. This is then used to say that the painting was the work of JD, as the argument has already "connected" JD to Germany.

Clearly, there are many assumptions here, one of which is that the wood used to make the frame is a good indicator of where the painting was made. This is what option A addresses.

The frame was made from wood local to the region where the picture was painted.

If we negate this, we get:

The frame was not made from wood local to the region where the picture was painted.

This means that the painting was not painted in northern Germany, and that weakens the argument, because the entire argument is built on choosing between JD and LB on the basis of the region.

The negation of D is:

The painter of the picture did not choose the frame for the picture.

Maybe JD just gave the painting to someone else and asked that person to frame the painting, and that person chose the frame. Or maybe JD just gave or sold the painting to someone else, and that someone else ended up choosing the frame. No matter who chose the frame, without further information, we cannot say that the conclusion is not a good one.