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

I'm honestly not sure I can do a better job than mikemcgarry already has in his prior explanation! But perhaps it would help to revisit the logic of this argument simply on its own merits, without using any kind of negation.

The conclusion is, "This shows that the painting is most likely the work of Drechen." Here's how the logic breaks down:

• The carved picture frame has been identified as the painting's original 17th-century frame.
• Analysis of the frame confirmed what kind of wood it had been carved from.
• That wood was found widely in northern Germany (where Drechen ostensibly lived).
• That wood was rare in the part of France where Birelle lived.
• This shows that the painting is most likely the work of Drechen.

One thing that Mike stressed, which is extremely important, is that the conclusion does NOT say that the painting is definitely the work of Drechen.

Also remember that we're asked which answer choice is an assumption required by this specific argument.

• We are NOT asked, "Which answer choice would prove that the painting was the work of Drechen?"
• We're not even asked, "Which choice would make the argument easier to believe?"

Instead, we're simply looking for an answer choice that completes the logic of the argument.

Well, the entire chain of logic of this argument focuses on what kind of wood the painting's frame was made of. The biggest gap in this chain lies between knowing where the carved frame was made and where the painting was made. After all, without any explicit information connecting these two actions, we could think up all kinds of alternate stories about where the frame was made, where the painting was made, or where the painting was fitted to the frame.

Choice (A) zeroes in directly on this logical gap, then provides evidence to fill it:

• The carved picture frame has been identified as the painting's original 17th-century frame.
• (A) The frame was made from wood local to the region where the picture was painted.
• Analysis of the frame confirmed what kind of wood it had been carved from.
• That wood was found widely in northern Germany (where Drechen ostensibly lived).
• That wood was rare in the part of France where Birelle lived.
• This shows that the painting is most likely the work of Drechen.

We keep (A) because it explicitly states what the passage is leaving unsaid: There is direct connection where the frame was carved and where the picture was painted. And since the frame's source of wood was found widely where Drechen lived but rarely where Birelle lived, this shows that the painting is most likely the work of Drechen.

Again, our confidence in the likelihood that this painting was the work of Drechen remains entirely unchanged... and that's totally fine, because we were only asked to identify a required assumption for the argument as it was written.

I hope this helps!

Let’s understand the passage first.
• The passage talks about a painting that has been recently discovered.
• The author is unsure about who painted the painting out of the two seventeenth-century artists (Johannes Drechen from Nothern Germany, and Louis Brielle from France).

• We have been given one additional piece of information about Louis Birelle; he/she sometimes painted in the same style as Drechen.

Inference: Since the painting style of both artists was similar sometimes, it is unclear as to who was the artist of the painting.

• The carved picture frame was analyzed.
• Fact 1: Furthermore, the carved picture frame was identified as the original frame for the 17th-century painting.

Inference: The carved picture frame was not changed or replaced.
• Fact 2: The result of the analysis showed that the wood used in making the carved frame was found widely in northern Germany in the 17th century.
• Fact 3: This wood used for making the carved frame was rare in the part of France where Birelle lived.
• The author concludes that based on the findings from the analysis, the painting was a work of Drechen.

Author’s logic:

(i) The wood used in the carved frame was found in Northern Germany.
(ii) Johannes Drechen was from northern Germany.
(iii) This type of wood was rare in the part of France where Birelle lived.

Pre-thinking

Falsification Condition

In what scenario – is the 17th – century painting NOT the work of Drechen, but of Birelle.

Given that:
(i) Birelle sometimes painted in the same style as Drechen.
(ii) The painting’s frame was established to the original frame from the 17th- century.
(iii) The wood used to make the frame was abundant in Northern Germany.
(iv) The wood used to make the frame was rarely found in the part of France, where Birelle lived.

Thought Process

The author is unsure about who out of Birelle and Drenchen is the artist of a 17- century painting, which was recently discovered. The author is unsure because Birelle sometimes painted in the same style as Drechen. However, analysis of the carved frame showed it the original 17- century frame. Thus, the author concludes that the painting was the work of Drechen because the type of wood used in making the carved frame was abundant in Nothern Germany (where Drechen lived). And Birelle could not have been the artist because that type of wood was rare where Birelle lived.

Falsification condition 1: What if the wood used to carve the picture frame was not local to the region of the artist.
• If the wood used to carve the picture frame was not local to the region of the artist, then it can be the case that the artist acquired the wood from some other place.
If Birelle had acquired the wood from Northern Germany or any other part of France where the wood was not rare, he could have been the artist of the 17th-century painting. This would break the author’s conclusion.

Assumption 1 (Negated Falsification Scenario): The wood used to carve the picture frame was local to the region of the artist.

Falsification condition 2: What if the painting was made in a region and the frame was made in a different region.
• In this case, we can say that the frame was made in Northern Germany (using the type of wood abundant there) but the painting was made in France, essentially establishing that Birelle could have likely been the artist. This would also break the author’s conclusion.

Assumption 2: The painting was made and framed in the same region where the artist lived.

Now let's analyze the answer choices.

(A) The frame was made from wood local to the region where the picture was painted. CORRECT

• This choice is in line with our pre-thought assumption 2; therefore, this option is the correct choice.

(B) Drechen is unlikely to have ever visited the home region of Birelle in France. INCORRECT

• Let us explore the possibility of this choice.
• Even if Drenchen had visited the home region of Birelle in France, it could have been the case that Drechen had made the painting in the region, of France where Birelle lived. The carved frame could have been added later in Northern Germany, or Drechen could have possessed the particular type of wood with him while he had visited Birelle in France. This option is ambiguous, and there cannot be the correct assumption.


(C) Sometimes a painting so resembles others of its era that no expert is able to confidently decide who painted it.INCORRECT

• This option talks about the resemblance of a painting with other paintings from the same era. It provides a possible reason as to why it was difficult to determine the original artist. This information is already given in the passage, and it is clearly not the basis of the author’s conclusion.

(D) The painter of the picture chose the frame for the picture.INCORRECT

• Is this necessary for the conclusion to hold true? No, because even if someone else chooses the frame, it does not help in determining who the painter was. This information is irrelevant.

(E) The carving style of the picture frame is not typical of any specific region of Europe.INCORRECT

• The carving style of the picture frame is completely irrelevant. The passage is about the availability of wood in two different regions to ascertain the artist of the painting.
Cheers!

GMATNinja
egmat sayantanc2k mikemcgarry

Isn't E also a viable option? It shows another approach to finding the painter- just like the wood. When using the negation technique, if carving style is found of any specific region, say france, can it also not break the conclusion then?

Would really appreciate your help
Thanks!

Posted from my mobile device

Hi ShivanshAggarwal,

Think of it this way: the argument tries to "link" a painting to a specific artist by "linking" the carved picture frame to the region where the artist lived. Anything that helps us link the frame to that region will help make the argument stronger. At the same time, anything that makes it harder to link the frame to a specific region will hurt the argument.

That is the problem with E. It makes it harder, not easier, to link the frame to a specific place.

I've just posted a video solution to this question:



- CJ

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. -> We can see clear resemblance of local (used in option) and rare (used in argument). Let's keep it.

(B) Drechen is unlikely to have ever visited the home region of Birelle in France. -> It should be reversed to take a long shot. Incorrect.

(C) Sometimes a painting so resembles others of its era that no expert is able to confidently decide who painted it. -> That's correct, but, it is not talking about who made the painting. Irrelevant.

(D) The painter of the picture chose the frame for the picture. -> Why do we focus on frame or not frame. We need to focus, who made the painting. Incorrect.

(E) The carving style of the picture frame is not typical of any specific region of Europe. -> Irrelevant.

So, I think A.

Hi avigutman - i selected A but grudingly. I really eliminated other choices.

• I can see that that the conclusion does NOT say that the painting is definitely the work of Drechen.
• Also that we're asked which answer choice is an assumption required by this specific argument.
• We are NOT asked, "Which answer choice would prove that the painting was the work of Drechen?"
• We're not even asked, "Which choice would make the argument easier to believe?"
  
  Instead, we're simply looking for an answer choice that completes the logic of the argument.

^^ taking above points into consideration -- my question is the following

Premise (have to accept as fact) - german wood was used for the frame of the painting.

(Option A if rephrased is saying) -- the picture must have been painted in northern germany (as we already know the wood for the frame is from northern germany as per the premise, which cannot be questioned)

I dont see why option A re-phrased is a necessary assumption

For example : Dreschen could very well have worked on this painting sitting in france or a third country, switzerland for example. The wood used for the framing was from northern germany.

I believe this scenario (in italics) falls within the boundaries of the argument because the wood for the frame is from Germany. The painter is Dreschen. BUT Dreschen may have worked on the painting sitting in france or 3rd country, switzerland for all we know

Dont see why we need to care about : where the painting was done ...knowing the painting was also done in germany seem more like a **strengthener** than 'assumption'

This is NOT making the argument IMPOSSIBLE to happen. This is 'weakening' at best.
But that GMAT looks for 'necessary assumptions'

My negation in the above -- is NOT a necessary assumption because the conclusion can still happen

Negating the correct answer need NOT prevent the conclusion from being possible.
Negating the correct answer need only make the argument nonsensical.

Why does the author claim that the painting is most likely the work of Drechen?
Because the frame is made of wood found widely in northern Germany at the time, but rare in the part of France where Birelle lived.

You must ask yourself: Does that reason still lead to the author's conclusion once we negate answer choice A?
What you asked yourself instead was: Is the author's conclusion still possible once we negate answer choice A?

Do you see the difference, jabhatta2 ?

Thanks so much avigutman - If i lay out the premise / option A negated / conclusion seperately



Does that reason still lead to the author's conclusion once we negate answer choice A?
I would argue - negated Option A does not. The green, frankly does not touch on the reason between the premise and the conclusion.

Does negated Option A -- make the conclusion, less likely in general {irresective of whatever is there in the premise} ?
Yes.
Negated option A makes the conclusion less likely in general (whatever is in the premise)

What gives the author confidence that the picture was Dreschen's, in your own words, jabhatta2 ?

Hi avigutman - based on the premise and the conclusion :

I think perhaps the author is thinking when making his conclusion

Where ever this wood is found in higher numbers -- the painters in that region use the wood that is widely available at this region.

Excellent, jabhatta2!
And you think answer choice A doesn't touch that? Can you elaborate?

Yes avigutman - i think A touches on it.

A says : Wood is local to where the picture was painted, for the purposes of the frame.

I think i find this strange because i dont think this is how normal assumptions are laid out. Its almost like a strengthener more than anything

A necessary assumption will strengthen the argument by definition.
Every necessary assumption is a strengthener, but not every strengthener is a necessary assumption.
Do you see now that the argument becomes nonsensical when we negate A, or still no, jabhatta2?

Argument
Either the german or the french made the painting. Since frame was made from german wood, it was made by German.

Question Type - Assumption (find)

(A) The frame was made from wood local to the region where the picture was painted. --> good, since the wood was local and is found in germany, this implies that the german made the painting --> CORRECT

(B) Drechen is unlikely to have ever visited the home region of Birelle in France. --> If he never visited France, he could have made painting from german wood or some other wood from other country. He might have bought it in England. But this does not mean that the French could have never visited Germany. So, he could have bought german wood and made painting --> this does not support/weaken conclusion --> Wrong

(C) Sometimes a painting so resembles others of its era that no expert is able to confidently decide who painted it. --> The argument is about wood and if it was german or not --> Out of Scope --> WRong

(D) The painter of the picture chose the frame for the picture. --> It does not matter who choses the frame --> Even if painter chose the frame he can choose from his own country or other country --> Irrelevent --> Wrong

(E) The carving style of the picture frame is not typical of any specific region of Europe. --> The argument is about wood and its relation to germany --> Irrelevent --> Wrong