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

You're right that this question is slightly different than the "typical" GMAT assumption question, but (E) actually does give us new info that is not found in the passage.

This question asks us to find an assumption that, if true, ensures that conclusion follows logically. In other words, which answer choice GUARANTEES that the conclusion is right? You rarely find GMAT questions written like this, but it's still valuable practice -- after all, you can use the same process to deeply understand the author's argument, read the exact language of the question, and use process of elimination on the answer choices.

Here's a breakdown of the author's argument:

• First, we get some background info: Vermeer used certain props in multiple different paintings.
• The author concludes that "it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used."
• He/she supports this conclusion by saying that "we know that many of the props Vermeer used were expensive."

So, which answer choice guarantees that Vermeer didn't reuse the objects because he lacked props?

Hmm, this actually makes it seem like Vermeer DID lack props -- so much so that he had to borrow the ones that he used! (A) definitely doesn't guarantee that he had more than enough props, so (A) is out.


Cool, so Vermeer had these items at his disposal -- but did he have OTHER available items that he could have used? We have no idea. So, it could be that Vermeer faced a lack of props, and that's why he reused items across multiple paintings.

(B) doesn't guarantee that the author's conclusion is right, so eliminate (B).


This one is similar to (A) -- if Vermeer had to borrow some objects from his sister, maybe he really was short on props to use in his paintings. Eliminate (C).


This is nice, but again, it doesn't guarantee that the author's conclusion holds up. Maybe Vermeer had a sentimental attachment to these items BECAUSE they were the only ones he had. If you assume (D), it's still possible that Vermeer faced a prop shortage -- so, (D) can't be the correct answer.


(E) tells us that if Vermeer faced a shortage of props, we absolutely would not see any expensive props in his paintings.

But there ARE expensive props in his paintings -- which means that it's impossible that he had a prop shortage. Therefore, there must be some other reason that he used the recurring props.

Notice that this connection isn't fully fleshed out in the passage. The author mentions that the props are expensive, but doesn't actually explain how that fact means that something other than a lack of props caused Vermeer to use the same objects multiple times.

If you assume (E), then the author's conclusion must hold up. So, (E) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!