The following is an exchange between two art historians over the

Question

The following is an exchange between two art historians over the recent restoration of the Sistine Chapel.

Scholar A 
I shudder to think what Michelangelo‘s reaction would be if he were to gaze up today at the famous frescoes he painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel over four centuries ago. He was a practical man and would not have been surprised by the effects of time and environment on his masterpiece. He would have been philosophical about the damage wrought by mineral salts left behind when rainwater leaked through the roof. He would also probably have taken in stride the layers of dirt and soot from the coal braziers that heated the chapel—if that dirt had not been removed during the restoration.

Scholar B 
The armament of the restorer is no longer limited to artistic sensibility and historical knowledge. A chemist on the Vatican restoration team identified the composition of the layers swathing Michelangelo‘s primary hues. Since there was a stratum of dirt between the painting and the first layer of glaze, it was clear that several decades had elapsed between the completion of the ceiling and the application of the glaze. This justified the use of cleaning solvents that would lift off all but that final layer of dirt, which was kept for the sake of protection of the frescoes.

Scholar A 
The Vatican restoration team revelled in inducing a colourful transformation in the frescoes with their special cleaning solvents and computerized analysis equipment. But he would have been appalled at the ravages inflicted on his work by the restorers.

This effect was not, as they claim, achieved merely by removing the dirt and animal glue (which was, by the way, employed by earlier restorers to revive muted colours). They removed Michelangelo‘s final touches as well. The ceiling no longer has its essential quality of suppressed anger and thunderous pessimism. That quality was not an artefact of grime, not a misleading monochrome imposed on the ceiling by time. Michelangelo himself applied a veil of glaze to the frescoes to darken them after he had deemed his work too bright. I think the master would have felt compelled to add a few more layers of glaze had the ceiling radiated forth as it does now. It is clear that the solvents of the restorers did not just strip away the shadows. They also reacted chemically with Michelangelo‘s pigments to produce hues the painter himself never beheld.

Scholar B 
The particular solvent they employed, AB 57, was chosen because of the overall neutral action of its two chemicals on pigments: one temporarily tones them down, but the other livens them up to the same degree. Thus, the colours that emerged from the shadows are truly what Michelangelo intended to be seen.

The luminous figures are without doubt the work of a master craftsman who executed typical Renaissance painting techniques to perfection. This is the source of the difficulty you have with the restoration: the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel no longer seems to be the fruit of the wayward genius, defiant of Renaissance fresco-painting protocol, that you always thought Michelangelo was. You don‘t like the fact that the painter seems, like a vagabond given a good scrubbing, to be a complete stranger, rational and traditional and devoid of fearfulness and anger. But the veil that led to the misperceptions of Michelangelo has now been lifted, and we may better acquaint ourselves with him.

Scholar A 
Of course, the restorers left open an avenue for the reversal of their own ―lifting of the veil.‖ Since the layers of animal glue are no longer there to serve as protection, the atmospheric pollutants from the city of Rome now have direct access to the frescoes. In fact, we‘ve already noticed significant darkening in some of the restored work, and it‘s only been four years since the restoration was completed. It remains to be seen whether the measure introduced to arrest this process—an extensive climatecontrol system—will itself have any long-term effect on the chapel‘s ceiling.  
 1 
 1. Scholar B‘s argument that the presence of dirt between the painting and the first layer of glaze justified the use of cleaning solvents to remove the glaze assumes that:

A. the dirt was laid down several decades after the painting‘s completion.
B. the cleaning solvents would never actually touch the frescoes.
C. Michelangelo intended the glaze to be relatively temporary.
D. Michelangelo could not have applied glaze to the ceiling decades after painting it.
E. dirt is not actually making the painting look more beautiful

2 
 2. Based on Scholar B‘s claim that Scholar A is unhappy because the ceiling ―no longer seems to be the fruit of   wayward genius, defiant of Renaissance painting protocol,‖ it is reasonable to conclude that:

A. Michelangelo was not a fiercely independent thinker.
B. the restoration has jeopardized Michelangelo‘s position in history as a great artist.
C. darkening colours to produce a gloomy effect was characteristic of Michelangelo‘s time.
D. historical conceptions of Michelangelo overestimated his negative traits.
E. Scholar A is not aware of all the aspects of Michaelangelo‘s personality

3 
 3. In arguing that some of the restored work has already been darkened by pollution, which of the following assumptions did Scholar A make?

I. Nothing except pollution could have caused the darkening.
II. The darkening indicates that irreversible damage has been done.
III. The atmospheric pollutants are more abundant now than they were before the restoration.

A. I only
B. I and II
C. II and III
D. I, II and III
E. None of the above

Gmatsaiyan · Answer

Topic and Scope  - Two scholars discuss the fidelity of the Sistine Chapel‘s
restoration to Michelangelo‘s original work.
 Mapping the Passage: 
¶1 Scholar A argues that Michelangelo would not have approved of the restoration.
¶2 Scholar B‘s argues that the restoration method was more scientific than previous
methods and, therefore, justified.
¶s3 and 4 Scholar A‘s argues that the restoration has brightened the colours of the
frescoes beyond what they were intended to be.
¶5 Scholar B‘s rebuts that the restoration method was designed to preserve the work.
¶6 Scholar B continues the argument by suggesting that the restoration has revealed
characteristics of Michelangelo that had been misinterpreted in the past.
¶7 Scholar A‘s response that restoration has made the ceiling potentially vulnerable to
pollution.

Gmatsaiyan · Answer

Answers and Explanations

1)  
Review Scholar B‘s arguments in ¶2. Because there‘s dirt in between the painting and the first layer of glaze, "several decades had elapsed" before the glaze was applied. What assumption is needed to bridge this evidence and conclusion? That perhaps the glaze had been applied by later workers, not Michelangelo.

Choice (D) fits. If unsure about the assumption, deny it (easy to do in this case since it‘s already in the negative) and see how the author‘s argument collapses.

(A): Out of Scope. The glaze was laid down decades after the painting, not the dirt.
(B): Out of Scope. The solvents don‘t factor in to this part of the argument.
(C): Opposite. The scholar is arguing that Michelangelo didn‘t lay the glaze at all.
(D): The correct answer
(E): Incorrect, as described above.

2)  
Paraphrase Scholar B‘s argument here. It helps to think of this in the traditional view/new view framework. The traditional view was that Michelangelo was a rebel.

Why? The Sistine colours were dark and gloomy. What has to be true based on this? That gloominess wasn‘t the style of the time (and therefore Michelangelo was a rebel). Therefore Scholar B, arguing against the traditional view, would then say that gloominess was the style. (C) immediately rewards careful and efficient thought.

(A): Distortion. Scholar B is arguing that Michelangelo wasn‘t a rebel against bright colors, but that doesn‘t mean that he wasn‘t an independent thinker.(B): Out of Scope. The artist‘s reputation isn‘t built exclusively on his rebellious nature.
(C): The correct answer
(D): Distortion. This is tempting, but the use of gloomy colours doesn‘t necessarily indicate a negative trait.
(E): Out of scope.

3)  
Review Scholar A‘s points in the last paragraph about the new darkening. The scholar makes a direct point: pollution has caused the darkening. What is a possible assumption in this? That nothing else could have been the cause. While two Roman numerals have nothing to do with the scholar‘s argument, RN I quickly jumps out as a necessary assumption. If other factors could have caused the darkening, Scholar A‘s argument is severely weakened. RN II is never suggested, nor would it be a concern of Scholar A. RN III simply has no support in the passage.

(A): The correct answer
(B): Opposite. As described above.
(C): Opposite. As above.
(D): Opposite. As above.
(E): Opposite. As above.

AwareBirdh · Answer

how 3 is a as the option is extreme and even if pollution damagesd the painting it doeasnt rukle out possibiblity of damage from other souceas it could have been right if author hsas states onlly pollution

guddo · Answer

3. In arguing that some of the restored work has already been darkened by pollution, which of the following assumptions did Scholar A make?

I. Nothing except pollution could have caused the darkening.
II. The darkening indicates that irreversible damage has been done.
III. The atmospheric pollutants are more abundant now than they were before the restoration.

A. I only
B. I and II
C. II and III
D. I, II and III
E. None of the above

Scholar A argues that, because the protective animal-glue layers were removed, atmospheric pollutants now have direct access to the frescoes. Then Scholar A points to the recent darkening as evidence that pollution has already affected the restored work.  The key assumption  is that this darkening was caused by pollution, not by some  other source .

I. Nothing except pollution could have caused the darkening.

This is required in the intended sense. Scholar A is attributing the darkening to pollution. If the darkening could instead have been caused by some other factor, then Scholar A’s claim that pollution has already darkened the work would not be supported.

II. The darkening indicates that irreversible damage has been done.

This is not required. Scholar A only says the work has already darkened because of pollution. The argument does not need to assume that the damage is permanent.

III. The atmospheric pollutants are more abundant now than they were before the restoration.

This is not required. Scholar A’s point is that the frescoes are now less protected because the animal-glue layers are gone. Even the same amount of pollution could be more harmful if it now has direct access to the frescoes.

So only I is assumed.

Answer: (A)

egmat · Answer

Hi AwareBirdh,

Your instinct that "Nothing except pollution could have caused the darkening"  sounds  extreme is completely fair. But here's the twist: on assumption questions, extreme-sounding statements are often exactly right, because an assumption is the  unstated  piece the argument silently needs. The fact that Scholar A didn't write "only pollution" is not evidence against the assumption - it's the whole reason it qualifies as one.

Reframe what an assumption is

It's not what the author  said ; it's what the author  needs to be true  for the conclusion to hold. So "extreme" is not a disqualifier here - necessity is.

Run RN I through the denial test

Scholar A's reasoning is: glue is gone, pollutants now reach the frescoes, we see darkening,  therefore  pollution caused it. Now deny RN I:  something other than pollution could have caused the darkening.  The moment you allow another cause, the observed darkening no longer pins the blame on pollution - the argument falls apart. So RN I is  necessary . That's exactly what you meant by "only pollution," just phrased as an assumption.

Why RN II and III fail the same test

Deny RN II (the damage is reversible) - Scholar A's claim that pollution is causing darkening still stands; reversibility was never the point. Deny RN III (pollution levels are unchanged) - the argument still works, because Scholar A's mechanism is the lost  barrier  (animal glue), not increased pollution. Neither is needed.

Quick stand-in to lock the move

"It rained last night, so the ground is wet." What is the speaker assuming?  That nothing else made the ground wet (no sprinkler, no spill).  It sounds extreme - but deny it and the conclusion breaks. Same shape as Q3.

Answer: A

The following is an exchange between two art historians over the

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

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

The following is an exchange between two art historians over the

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

My Rewards