Hi Divyadisha,

You could be correct if the conclusion did not have a word SUCH in such museum.....
so the IO is very clear that the malpractice can stop if people stop visiting such museums.
So what could he be assuming by saying people stop visiting such museums - he assumes people can find out which museums use fake paintings be it through some government agency, or through word of mouth or through knowledge of paintings. we are really not concerned about the ways they can use to find out till the time they can find the same..

Now say the conclusion would have been -

The investigating officer concluded that this could stop if the public did not visit such museums.
Now yes the point you are saying is valid. May be the IO believes people stop going to museums in general and the museums understand that there is more to lose than to gain and other authentic museums thus force SUCH museums to stop displaying fake paintings.
Yes choice C here would be out of scope as the public has stopped going to all the museums so they MAY/MAY NOT know which museum displays fake paintings..
_________________

Solution...

A museum was caught using fake paintings. investigating officer conclusion that Using of fake paintings can stop if public stopped using these museums...

we are looking for assumption, and our assumption has to be something to do with public visiting the museums or/and practice stopping

lets see the statements-

(1) Museums resort to such tactics to generate revenues.
This is already mentioned in argument and also it does not have anything to do with the conclusion..

(2) The Administration does not have any mechanism to stop museums from displaying such fake paintings.
We are speaking about people visiting and the practice of using fake paintings stopping, so OUT of scope

(3) The people visiting these museums can find whether a museum displays fake paintings or not.
Correct. If the Investing Officer feels that public stops using these museums, so he must be assuming that people can find whether museum displays fake paintings.
If people are unable to find whether the museum indulges in these practices, the conclusion will NOT stand

(4) Not all museums resort to displaying fake paintings to generate revenue.
Out of scope

(5) The museums will keep indulging in these malpractices if people do not stop visiting them.
Again a tempting choice- 50% have choosen this as ANSWER... But it is an extreme choice - WHY?
the IO concluded that the practice will stop if people stop visiting them, BUT does it mean that if people continue visiting them, the museums will keep following these practices - NO..
this would be TRUE if conclusion said - "The investigating officer concluded that this could stop ONLY if the public did not visit such museums."
so there may be some other method which can stop this practice, may be governments interference or media coverage or heavy penalty... The conclusion just states that people not visiting them is one such way
_________________

(1) Museums resort to such tactics to generate revenues. This is stated in the argument, hence not an assumption.
(2) The Administration does not have any mechanism to stop museums from displaying such fake paintings. Could be assumption, but too far fetched in my opinion.
(3) The people visiting these museums can find whether a museum displays fake paintings or not. Correct. The Investigating officer asks people to stop visiting such museums, so he/she believes that people can find out whether the museum displays fake painting.
(4) Not all museums resort to displaying fake paintings to generate revenue. Irrelevant.
(5) The museums will keep indulging in these malpractices if people do not stop visiting them. This is the same as conclusion.

My answer is C.

Recently the museums in Cremia were in news when one of the most visited and flourishing museums of Cremia was found to be using fake paintings of renowned artists. It was found in an investigation later that many of the museums resort to displaying fake paintings in order to generate revenues. The investigating officer concluded that this could stop if the public did not visit such museums.
What is the assumption that the officer makes for the conclusion to be true?

(1) Museums resort to such tactics to generate revenues.-->Not relevant
(2) The Administration does not have any mechanism to stop museums from displaying such fake paintings.--This is a kind of strengthening
(3) The people visiting these museums can find whether a museum displays fake paintings or not.--->Not relevant
(4) Not all museums resort to displaying fake paintings to generate revenue.--->Generalized statement
(5) The museums will keep indulging in these malpractices if people do not stop visiting them.---Correct. That is the reason why the investigation officer told people to stop visiting the museum.

Possible Assumption: For the investigating officers conclusion to hold true, the public must be able to distinguish between a fake painting and an original painting.

C aligns with our assumption.

Answer: C

I was confused between B and E but finally chose E as for my answer

B somehow provide an another possibilty that author has already assumed

While I found E more tempting as negating it will break the conclusion

Lets wait for OA

One more for C. If people can identify a fake painting displayed by a museum then they can avoid visiting those museums . This goes toe to toe with the Officers reasoning. Besides options 1 and 5 are already mentioned in the para so they cant be assumptions .Assumptions answers are unstated.

Conclusion: The investigating officer concluded that this could stop if the public did not visit such museums.

In most of the assumptions, the correct answer will not be talking about the future. Eliminate "C".

Only B and E are relevant.

B - The Administration does not have any mechanism to stop museums from displaying such fake paintings.
It provides the reason as to why the officer is asking the people to stop visiting.
Negation: If the administration was able to stop the fake painting by itself, then it wouldn't ask the people to stop visiting. Breaks the conclusion.

E - The museums will keep indulging in these malpractices if people do not stop visiting them.
This is also somewhat correct i feel the choice "B" is stronger.

My pick - B

Conclusion- if people stop visiting the museums, the practice of displaying fake paintings will stop.

The practice is their because it generates revenue.

There are few assumptions:-
1) Due to the news, people will stop visiting the museums, leading to loss of revenues and eventually stopping the practice.
2) If some practice generates revenues, the practice is used.
3) If practice stops generating revenues, it will force museums to take off the paintings.

(1) Museums resort to such tactics to generate revenues. How will the practice stop is our concern
(2) The Administration does not have any mechanism to stop museums from displaying such fake paintings. We are looking for the assumption that says due to public not visiting the museums, museums stop displaying fake pieces
(3) The people visiting these museums can find whether a museum displays fake paintings or not. does it mean that is people can find the reality, they will stop visiting museums?
(4) Not all museums resort to displaying fake paintings to generate revenue. This is an assumption, But does not help in reaching the conclusion.
(5) The museums will keep indulging in these malpractices if people do not stop visiting them. Correct choice. if people keep visiting, revenue will keep generating. And revenue is the reason that museums keep fake pieces.

If we negate the choice. The museums will keep indulging in these malpractices if people stop visiting them. It attacks the conclusion saying it doesn't matter if people stop visiting the museums; the malpractices will still be there

IMHO, answer should be E
_________________

chetan2u, request you to share the answer.
_________________

chetan2u, with due respect, people are talked about only in the last statement. Conclusion says that if people stop going, malpractices will stop. It doesn't mean that people can find out weather museums display fake or real paintings.

I feel that there must be a connection to show negative impression on people's mind because of the fake paintings in museums and unwillingness to visit these museums. Please advise.
_________________

In addition to the clarification given by Chetan, I want to point out that Option E is a prediction rather than an assumption. So E cannot be the answer choice.

Dear Mod ,
Thanks for the wonderful question I enjoyed solving however I have a doubt that If we negate E argument falls in this question and Negation technique is the one I am learning to apply . So i would be thankful if you can explain negation in E option in this case

Option E negated is:
The museums will stop these malpractices if people do not stop visiting them.

Option E negated is just the opposite of what the conclusion states. It does not break the link between premise to conclusion. In order to be the correct assumption, the negated statement must break the link between premise and conclusion, not just be the opposite of conclusion.

[quote="varundixitmro2512"]I was confused between B and E but finally chose E as for my answer

B somehow provide an another possibilty that author has already assumed

While I found E more tempting as negating it will break the conclusion

Lets wait for OA[/quo



E for me too..

(1) Museums resort to such tactics to generate revenues.
(2) The Administration does not have any mechanism to stop museums from displaying such fake paintings.
(3) The people visiting these museums can find whether a museum displays fake paintings or not.
(4) Not all museums resort to displaying fake paintings to generate revenue.
(5) The museums will keep indulging in these malpractices if people do not stop visiting them.

Answer Is C
As the entire ARGUMENT FALLS FLAT if the patrons cannot differentiate between original and forged paintings.

(1) Museums resort to such tactics to generate revenues. This is stated in the argument, hence not an assumption.
(2) The Administration does not have any mechanism to stop museums from displaying such fake paintings. Could be assumption, but too far fetched in my opinion.
(3) The people visiting these museums can find whether a museum displays fake paintings or not. Correct. The Investigating officer asks people to stop visiting such museums, so he/she believes that people can find out whether the museum displays fake painting.
(4) Not all museums resort to displaying fake paintings to generate revenue. Irrelevant.
(5) The museums will keep indulging in these malpractices if people do not stop visiting them. This is the same as conclusion.

My answer is C.

Hi All ,

I marked B because i thought that administration is not able to do anything regarding these fake paintings so investigating officer is telling public to not come to such museums.
So can anyone tell me why my reasoning is wrong?

Thanks