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

It is currently 22 Oct 2019, 16:54

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior PS Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done.
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 737
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jan 2019, 08:04
3
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

56% (02:20) correct 44% (02:18) wrong based on 247 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we find several recurrent items: a satin jacket, a certain Turkish carpet, and wooden chairs with lion’s head finials. These reappearing objects might seem to evince a dearth of props. Yet we know that many of the props Vermeer used were expensive. Thus, while we might speculate about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects, it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.
(B) The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him.
(C) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.
(D) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him.
(E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them.

_________________
Regards,
Gladi



“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” - Yoda (The Empire Strikes Back)
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Apr 2018
Posts: 124
Location: India
Schools: INSEAD Jan '20
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.9
Re: In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jan 2019, 00:30
1
Gladiator59 wrote:
In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we find several recurrent items: a satin jacket, a certain Turkish carpet, and wooden chairs with lion’s head finials. These reappearing objects might seem to evince a dearth of props. Yet we know that many of the props Vermeer used were expensive. Thus, while we might speculate about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects, it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.
(B) The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him.
(C) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.
(D) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him.
(E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them.


IMO E.

Observation: A dearth of props in the paintings.
Premise: Props used were expensive.
Conclusion: The dearth was not because of lack of props.

Logical gap: If there is lack of props then all the props should be not expensive.

Only option E fills this logical gap and hence should be the correct answer.
_________________
Kindly click on +1Kudos if my post helps you...
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 212
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q48 V34
Re: In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jan 2019, 04:23
E for me too!! But I came to this choice through poe.

Could anyone explain the meaning of the option?

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Aug 2018
Posts: 226
Re: In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jan 2019, 08:19
1
IMO E

prethink: author states that props were expensive and hence props does not reprsent dearth of prop .Author assumes that if Vermeer used expensive props, he had money to buy other props.

E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them.
_________________
"Press +1 KUDOS"

Be very critical of my Post
Ask as many questions of my post possible
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2401
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jan 2019, 21:13
1
In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we find several recurrent items: a satin jacket, a certain Turkish carpet, and wooden chairs with lion’s head finials. These reappearing objects might seem to evince a dearth of props. Yet we know that many of the props Vermeer used were expensive. Thus, while we might speculate about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects, it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used.

Type- assumption
Boil it down- it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used.
Pre-thinking- if Vermeer used expensive props, then he did not have a lack of props

(A) Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.- incorrect- does not bridge the gap
(B) The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him. - incorrect - the argument works even if recurrent items were available most of the time
(C) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.- irrelevant
(D) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him. - irrelevant
(E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them.- correct

An explanation of option E- Let us assume that Costs of recurrent items were - satin jacket(5000$), certain Turkish carpet(5000$) and wooden chairs with lion’s head finials(1000$)
Vermeer spent upwards of 10,000$ for the props used.
So, it seems although he could have bought a number of cheaper props, he bought ONLY a few expensive ones to portray his views/thoughts.



Answer E
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Director
Director
avatar
G
Joined: 09 Mar 2018
Posts: 994
Location: India
In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jan 2019, 23:10
Gladiator59 wrote:
In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we find several recurrent items: a satin jacket, a certain Turkish carpet, and wooden chairs with lion’s head finials. These reappearing objects might seem to evince a dearth of props. Yet we know that many of the props Vermeer used were expensive. Thus, while we might speculate about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects, it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.
(B) The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him.
(C) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.
(D) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him.
(E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them.


Conclusion been-> It was not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used

I felt, B C and D were giving the reasons for this ->
while we might speculate about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects,
(B) The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him.
(C) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.
(D) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him.

My bottom 2 were A and E.

(A) Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.
Again doesn't this answer the speculation ??

(E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any some of them.
Now ideally if we negate this, It will say that even though props were not abundant, he still was getting(buying ) them from somewhere.

Am i correct in my reasoning??

Hi Yash312, Can you please share your thoughts on above.
_________________
If you notice any discrepancy in my reasoning, please let me know. Lets improve together.

Quote which i can relate to.
Many of life's failures happen with people who do not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Aug 2018
Posts: 226
Re: In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jan 2019, 12:54
1
KanishkM wrote:
Gladiator59 wrote:
In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we find several recurrent items: a satin jacket, a certain Turkish carpet, and wooden chairs with lion’s head finials. These reappearing objects might seem to evince a dearth of props. Yet we know that many of the props Vermeer used were expensive. Thus, while we might speculate about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects, it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.
(B) The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him.
(C) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.
(D) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him.
(E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them.


Conclusion been-> It was not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used

I felt, B C and D were giving the reasons for this ->
while we might speculate about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects,
(B) The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him.
(C) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.
(D) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him.

My bottom 2 were A and E.

(A) Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.
Again doesn't this answer the speculation ??

(E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any some of them.
Now ideally if we negate this, It will say that even though props were not abundant, he still was getting(buying ) them from somewhere.

Am i correct in my reasoning??

Hi Yash312, Can you please share your thoughts on above.


Hi
KanishkM

well your reasoning is correct
but your negation seems to be MOST STRONG Negation , instead of LEAST NEGATION

Negated version of E: If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would see some expensive props

remember we have to perform Least negation and not Most negation
negation of not----some not or Some yes
_________________
"Press +1 KUDOS"

Be very critical of my Post
Ask as many questions of my post possible
Director
Director
avatar
G
Joined: 09 Mar 2018
Posts: 994
Location: India
Re: In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jan 2019, 19:33
Yash312 wrote:
KanishkM wrote:
Gladiator59 wrote:
In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we find several recurrent items: a satin jacket, a certain Turkish carpet, and wooden chairs with lion’s head finials. These reappearing objects might seem to evince a dearth of props. Yet we know that many of the props Vermeer used were expensive. Thus, while we might speculate about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects, it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.
(B) The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him.
(C) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.
(D) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him.
(E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them.


Conclusion been-> It was not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used

I felt, B C and D were giving the reasons for this ->
while we might speculate about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects,
(B) The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him.
(C) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.
(D) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him.

My bottom 2 were A and E.

(A) Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.
Again doesn't this answer the speculation ??

(E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any some of them.
Now ideally if we negate this, It will say that even though props were not abundant, he still was getting(buying ) them from somewhere.

Am i correct in my reasoning??

Hi Yash312, Can you please share your thoughts on above.


Hi
KanishkM

well your reasoning is correct
but your negation seems to be MOST STRONG Negation , instead of LEAST NEGATION

Negated version of E: If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would see some expensive props

remember we have to perform Least negation and not Most negation
negation of not----some not or Some yes


Hi Yash312

Thank you so much for providing your invaluable insight.

You are absolutely correct at the your point :).

The way how you negated the sentence, makes lot of sense.

Major Takeaway:
I should not 100 % negate the sentence, If even weak negation helps, I should be good.
_________________
If you notice any discrepancy in my reasoning, please let me know. Lets improve together.

Quote which i can relate to.
Many of life's failures happen with people who do not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we   [#permalink] 27 Jan 2019, 19:33
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we

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





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne