Art restorers who have been studying the factors that cause Renaissanc

Question

Art restorers who have been studying the factors that cause Renaissance oil paintings to deteriorate physically when subject to climatic changes have found that the oil paint used in these paintings actually adjusts to these changes well. The restorers therefore hypothesize that it is a layer of material called gesso, which is under the paint, that causes the deterioration.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the restorers’ hypothesis?

(A) Renaissance oil paintings with a thin layer of gesso are less likely to show deterioration in response to climatic changes than those with a thicker layer.

(B) Renaissance oil paintings are often painted on wooden panels, which swell when humidity increases and contract when it declines.

(C) Oil paint expands and contracts readily in response to changes in temperature, but it absorbs little water and so is little affected by changes in humidity.

(D) An especially hard and nonabsorbent type of gesso was the raw material for moldings on the frames of Renaissance oil paintings.

(E) Gesso layers applied by Renaissance painters typically consisted of a coarse base layer onto which several increasingly fine-grained layers were applied.

ID: 500288

akashb106 · Accepted Answer

(A) Renaissance oil paintings with a thin layer of gesso are less likely to show deterioration in response to climatic changes than those with a thicker layer.---   CORRECT, because this shows that the less the gesso, the less deterioration. 
More gesso leads to more deterioration.   
(B) Renaissance oil paintings are often painted on wooden panels, which swell when humidity increases and contract when it declines.---  Weakening the hypothesis because this says wood panels could be to blame for deterioration.  
(C) Oil paint expands and contracts readily in response to changes in temperature, but it absorbs little water and so is little affected by changes in humidity. ---  This supports but only talks about oil paint. But the hypothesis is about Gesso and not oil paints.  
(D) An especially hard and nonabsorbent type of gesso was the raw material for moldings on the frames of Renaissance oil paintings.---  Type of gesso is irrelevant. We are only concerned about how it affects the deterioration.  
(E) Gesso layers applied by Renaissance painters typically consisted of a coarse base layer onto which several increasingly fi ne-grained layers were applied.---  Irrelevant. Does not show us the effect of Gesso.

GMATNinja · Answer

Here's a link  if you want to dig deeper into the difference between the usage of "a little" and "little". In summary, "a little" means   some or a small amount   and "little" means   not much or almost nothing  . Neither of them means   nothing or none at all  , which is why you might be struggling with (C).

Let's take a look at the passage before examining why (C) is not the correct answer. The passage tells us:
  Art restorers are studying why Renaissance art paintings deteriorate physically when a painting's climate changes 
 They've found the oil paint adjusts to these changes well -- it is  not the paint  that's causing the deterioration 
 The restorers' hypothesis is that the gesso causes the deterioration

So, there are some paintings that are physically deteriorating and some restorers would like to know why. Since the paint  adjusts well to a changing climate , something else must be causing the deterioration. The restorers are suggesting that must be the gesso layer.

We're asked to find the answer choice that most strongly supports the restorers' hypothesis. Let's take a look at (C) to see whether it does this:
 
(C) does not do much to support the hypothesis. The first part tells us the paint  "expands and contracts readily"  in response to temperature changes. We are not told whether expansion or contraction of the paint causes any deterioration to the painting or, as the passage says, the paint  "adjusts to these changes well" .

The second part of (C) tells us the paint  "absorbs little water" , meaning  not much or almost no  water, and isn't affected by changing humidity. This part supports the idea that the paint is not the cause of the deterioration but does nothing to support the hypothesis that the gesso causes the deterioration.

(C) gives us additional information about how the oil paint reacts to climatic changes but does nothing to support the restorers' hypothesis -- (C) cannot be our answer.

Now, let's take a look at (D):
 
(D) talks about the gesso used as raw material  for moldings on the frames  of Renaissance oil paintings, rather than the paintings themselves.

We are not concerned with the gesso on the frames, we are interested in the gesso that is  "under the paint"  on the painting. This is why (D) is not the correct answer.

Finally, let's examine (A) to see why it is the correct answer:
 
If a  thicker layer  of gesso results in  more deterioration  then this supports the idea that it is the gesso that causes the paintings' deterioration.

By linking the thickness of the  gesso  to the level of deterioration, this supports the restorers' hypothesis. This is why (A) is the answer to this question.

I hope that helps!

CAMANISHPARMAR · Answer

Official Answer:

Argument Evaluation

Situation  Renaissance paintings are subject to deterioration due to changes in climate, but their actual paint is not a factor in this deterioration. Instead, restorers hypothesize, it is gesso, the material under the paint, that causes problems for the paintings.

Reasoning  What would most strongly support the hypothesis that gesso is causing the deterioration? An indication that gesso is affected by climatic changes would be most helpful in supporting the hypothesis. What could show that gesso is affected in this way? If the extent of a painting's deterioration is directly related to the amount of gesso used under that painting, then the gesso clearly plays some part in that deterioration.

Option A is Correct.  This statement properly identifies a point supporting the hypothesis.

Ankita1122 · Answer

Hi there, quick one:

I'm trying to understand why option D is an option anyway? What are they trying to test with that option? Even if they trick you to believe that there is a connection between the gesso used in the frames and the gesso used under the oil paint - why would the qualities of "hard and nonabsorbent type" trick you... Not sure if I am missing something here or if this option is HIGHLY irrelevant... Thanks in advance.

VeritasPrepBrian · Answer

Good question - and actually I love "why is <wrong answer> even an answer anyway?" The more you can do that, the easier these are! I've often found in teaching classes one of the unanticipated challenges is trying to explain certain wrong answers...when there are so many things wrong with them, you don't really want to try to make them "close," you know?

On this one I think there's a "Think Like the Tentmaker" kind of lesson here with D. One reason it's there is that people who don't really get (or take the time to understand) the argument often choose answers that "feel familiar," and an easy way to do that is just to repeat language from the passage. D has "Renaissance," "gesso" - all the important words from the stimulus, so you'll get people who just think on feel that "hey this is really similar to the passage" and pick it, especially if in a rush.

But more interesting to me - take a look at that modifier "which is under the paint" in the conclusion. Without that modifier, I think I'd see one of the gaps in the argument as "hey how do we even know there's gesso in these paintings?" Gesso is first introduced in the conclusion sentence itself, so I could see someone who doesn't take note of that modifier thinking "I want to find an answer that establishes that gesso is in these Renaissance paintings to begin with," and D does do that. Of course, the argument itself has already established that these paintings include gesso, but if you don't see that you're right to be looking for that connection.

And this is something I've seen the testmaker do a fair bit - a trap answer to a strengthen question can restate information you already had (Data Sufficiency does this too), so it definitely feels relevant...it just doesn't add any new value to the argument, so it doesn't strengthen it.

Leonaann · Answer

why does the thickness of the layer of gesso matter? please help.

GMATNinja · Answer

The restorers hypothesize that "it is a layer of material called gesso, which is under the paint, that causes the deterioration" of Renaissance oil paintings.

To answer the question, we are looking for the answer choice that "most strongly supports" this hypothesis.

Take a look at answer choice (A):
 
This answer choice tells us that paintings with  less  gesso (a thinner layer), are  less  likely to show deterioration. Or, in other words, paintings with more gesso (a thicker layer), are more likely to deteriorate. This information supports the idea that gesso is the culprit causing the paintings to deteriorate, because there is a direct relationship between the amount of gesso used and the deterioration of the painting. (A) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

Chelsea212 · Answer

Hi everyone! I see lots of great responses to questions, so I'm just adding my thoughts here. If for whatever reason you would still like another perspective, my thoughts are below.

1. Read and compartmentalize   - I read the question first before the stem. I find that by reading the question first, I change the perspective from which I read the passage. If you're a fairly fast reader, I think this is a beneficial way to approach CR and the redundancy of potentially reading the question twice should not make any material difference in time management. Onto the meat - fairly straight forward passage with 2 sentences in the structure of premise followed-up by conclusion.

2. Pre-think when possible - always!   The first thing I think of is 'mo Gesso, mo problems'. It's actually the only thing that immediately pops into my head and I don't like to spend time pre-thinking for really more than 10 seconds so I move on to the choices with the questions in mind.

3. Find 4 wrong answers 
 
(A) Renaissance oil paintings with a thin layer of gesso are less likely to show deterioration in response to climatic changes than those with a thicker layer.  -  Bingo!  This hits the nail on the head right away. It's so spot on with my rethinking that I'm a touch suspect. However, the fact that the Gesso is under the painting and the quantity of gesso is positively correlated with the amount of deterioration confirms the conclusion, which is the restorers' hypothesis.

(B) Renaissance oil paintings are often painted on wooden panels, which swell when humidity increases and contract when it declines. This does not have any impact on the restorers' hypothesis that the amount of Gesso under a painting is positively correlated to the amount of deterioration exhibited. This answer choice doesn't even touch the topic of deterioration.

(C) Oil paint expands and contracts readily in response to changes in temperature, but it absorbs little water and so is little affected by changes in humidity.  Again, this does not address what gesso has to do with deterioration. Oil paint's sensitivity to temperature changes may be true; however, this activity does not touch on what gesso has to do with  deterioration.

(D) An especially hard and nonabsorbent type of gesso was the raw material for moldings on the frames of Renaissance oil paintings. - The characteristics of gesso here has not been linked to the deterioration of oil paintings. If you were tempted by this answer choice, I think that the chances are that you did not have the conclusion in mind, and were tempted by the similar language of the answer choice. I've found that it's easiest to make a mistake like this when you haven't fully absorbed/understood the passage.

(E) Gesso layers applied by Renaissance painters typically consisted of a coarse base layer onto which several increasingly fine-grained layers were applied  - This may have been a regular practice, but it is not linked to the deterioration of oil paintings. I also realize I now sound like a broken record here =)

uc26 · Answer

Hi  nightblade354 ,

I have a quick question. I marked the correct answer to this question but i unfortunately eliminated B for the wrong reason. I noticed that it does not mention anything about gesso having any impact on the paintings. So cannot be a candidate.
I, however, now notice that B presents an alternate cause for the deterioration and this infact weakens the argument. So that is why it is out.
My question is- Could B have been another strengthener if it said: "Renaissance oil paintings are often painted on wooden panels, which respond well to climatic changes" 
Because in this case, it would mean eliminating an alternate cause for the deterioration thereby strengthening the argument, correct?

Thanks and Regards,
Udit

nightblade354 · Answer

I'd like to not speculate as to whether this would be a true strengthener. Does it help? To a certain extent. It certainly doesn't weaken the argument. But certain assumptions would need to be made to make it a strengthener (such as assuming that we only have paint, gesso, and the wooden frame on the painting).

darkknight016 · Answer

mikemcgarry ,  DmitryFarber ,  GMATNinja  and other experts

This is regarding option C. I had once read somewhere that "little" means nothing, "a little" means something whose amount is less. In option C ".....but it absorbs  little  water and so is  little  affected....." , the meaning conveyed is that neither does it absorb any water nor is it affected or no such differentiation between "a little" and "little" exists on the GMAT.

TarunKumar1234 · Answer

Hypothesize that it is a layer of material called gesso, which is under the paint, that causes the deterioration.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the restorers’ hypothesis?

(A) Renaissance oil paintings with a thin layer of gesso are less likely to show deterioration in response to climatic changes than those with a thicker layer. -> So, we are trying to put blame on gesso. It makes sense. Let's keep it.

(B) Renaissance oil paintings are often painted on wooden panels, which swell when humidity increases and contract when it declines. -> But, how can I blame gesso. Incorrect.

(C) Oil paint expands and contracts readily in response to changes in temperature, but it absorbs little water and so is little affected by changes in humidity. -> I am still not able to blame gesso. Damn! Incorrect.

(D) An especially hard and nonabsorbent type of gesso was the raw material for moldings on the frames of Renaissance oil paintings. -> It takes about gesso property, but how it is related with painting in good or bad impact. Incorrect.

(E) Gesso layers applied by Renaissance painters typically consisted of a coarse base layer onto which several increasingly fine-grained layers were applied. -> Isn't it is in same line as option D does. Incorrect.

So, I think A.

jabhatta2 · Answer

AndrewN  - I selected C over A. Reason for why i thought C was right ->

Background - normally in in causation questions --lets say : Y causes Z

One way to strengthen the argument is to say -- X does  not  cause Z.

I thought option C adopted a similar strategy.

---------------------------------------

Doesn't answer C, re-inforce that oil    CANNOT    be the cause for deterioation.

How does C do that ? Well C says,

So, if oil expands and contracts  readily  to change in temperature --> that means oil "adjusts well to climatic changes"

That ability to "readily" change i thought inferred, oil "adjusts well to climatic changes" --> this further supports the idea that oil CANNOT be the cause of deteriotation.

Thus, isnt C a kind of strengthener as well ?

Thoughts ?

jabhatta2 · Answer

AndrewN  - On the other hand , I did not like option A because of the words " likely to show "

Just because less gesso is " less likely to show " deterioration -- that could mean deterioration is taking place but we as viewers are just not able to see it.

I got the impression, its possible that 
- Less gesso is CAUSING a  lot  of deterioration 
BUT 
- Its just not "likely" to be seen

Analogy - My jeans are  less likely  to show my weight gain == well, the weight gain happened. My jeans are the reason why my weight gain is not "showing" it to the world. But the weight gain did happen (behind the scenes)

Simirlarly, I thought option A was irrelevant whether gesso or oil "showed" deterioration ... I was looking for an answer choice that CONFIRMED that gesso  CAUSED  /  INITIATED  /  Was the definitive cause  for deterioration.

"less likely to show" / "more likely to show " were just wrong because thats just what is in front of the public.

Thought on where I am maybe going wrong

desertEagle · Answer

"less likely... than" a comparison idiom. Option A means that Thin layer is going to show less deterioration than a thick one. This means if there is more gesso, there is more deterioration. This shows correlation between gesso and deterioration.

"less likely to show" / "more likely to show " were just wrong because thats just what is in front of the public.  - but if it is showing more in thick one means it has deformed more..

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  jabhatta2 . How about we deal with these queries one at a time?

There a few problems I see with answer choice (C). Yes, while it does seem to rule out that oil paint itself is subject to deterioration, we cannot infer that the only other potential cause of such deterioration is the  layer of material called gesso . Actually, answer choice (B) tips us off on this line of reasoning by mentioning the  wooden panels  on which the Renaissance paintings were often executed. We would expect to encounter further information on gesso if our task is to strengthen the hypothesis of the restorers that  gesso... causes the deterioration . Furthermore, answer choice (C) adds little to what the passage already tells us about oil paint:  Art restorers... have found that the oil paint used in these   paintings actually adjusts to these   changes well . I think that  changes in humidity  would qualify as  climatic changes .

Finally, I would urge you not to pursue a line of thought that "normally in causation questions" so-and-so is true. When you focus on categorizing the information in a passage, the question attached to it, or even the answer choices, it is easy to turn off your critical reasoning and shift into autopilot instead. (An example might be to write off an answer choice simply because of the presence of the word  some . Some correct answer choices incorporate such language, even if many more trap answers use the same.) Your goal is to evaluate each answer choice objectively within the given constraints, and against each other answer choice, nothing more.

First off, I think  neerajgupta  wrote a fine response on  less likely  as a comparison marker. Your response indicates that you may have misinterpreted  to show  at the end of the comparison. In this context, the deterioration is not a matter of perception, but of an actual physical quality. By way of comparison, we can look to the trading card market. Take the following definitions from  TCGPlayer , a popular trading card game (TCG) site. Pay particular attention to the  verb  of the main clause:

Notice that  show  and  have  are used synonymously within the context of a description of the condition of a trading card, even though the former can be used to indicate a perceived quality while the latter typically indicates an actual characteristic.

As usual, then, context is everything. You have to be careful not to turn some piece of information into what you think it could be. Answer choice (A) suggests a correlation between gesso and deterioration, just as the restorers have hypothesized, so it is the best strengthener of the five options, as many others have discussed above in the thread.

Thank you for thinking to ask me about the question. By chance, I came across it in my practice just this week, so it was fresh on my mind.

- Andrew

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   MartyTargetTestPrep  - while I did select option A, I do think option A suffers from some issues.

Would you agree that option A does not refer to the ' link/un-written assumption ' specifically between the premise and the conclusion?

GMATninja did mention the importance on focussing on this ' link / un written assumption ' when eliminating option D in another CR problem like  This CR problem .

Simirlarly in this case, i was hoping the answer choice focussed on the 'link' between the premise and the conclusion

The ' un mentioned assumption'  between the premise and the conclusion is perhaps -- Gesso does not respond well to climate change | Other 3rd factors (such as papyrus for example) , respond well to climate change...) 
. 
All option A does is frankly strengthen the conclusion (Blue box) BUT it does not strengthen the 'link' (as represented as in red arrow) in the diagram below.

Thoughts ?

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Notice that this question is not an Assumption question. So, the correct answer doesn't have to link the evidence to the conclusion.

When answering Critical Reasoning questions, we have to carefully note what the question stem asks and make sure we understand what the correct answer has to do.

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  MartyTargetTestPrep  - thanks for responding. I agree this is a strengthener type question.

But shouldnt the 'strengthener' focus on the strengthening the assumption ?

Per my understadning, strengtheners should NOT be focussing on strengthening the conclusion. Simirlarly, strengtheners should NOT be focussing on strengthening the premises.

Art restorers who have been studying the factors that cause Renaissanc

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Art restorers who have been studying the factors that cause Renaissanc

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia