The running of museums is paid for by the collections from sales of

Question

The running of museums is paid for by the collections from sales of tickets. Keeping a museum that also houses many rare and thus more expensive ancient artefacts operational requires huge funds which is a constraining factor in deciding the kind and number of artefacts to be displayed. Now, a small group of extremely rich collectors and patrons donate huge funds to the museum only in lieu of the right to decide the type of artefacts to be bought and displayed. However, if the decision was left to the curator of the museum, more rare and ancient artefacts would be on display.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

A. In the absence of the collectors and patrons’ funds, the museum will have to sell some existing artefacts to acquire newer ones.

B. The sales from the museum will only be able to compensate for about half the amount received from the funds given by the patrons.

C. The people who visit museums do not really have the knowledge to understand the true value of the rare artefacts on display.

D. Collectors of rare artefacts and patrons of the museums rarely extend their support for reasons other than the sole rights to run the museum.

E. Curators of the museum sometimes do not have complete knowledge of the artefacts displayed in the museum.

chillbrorelax · Answer

The main argument of this passage is in the last sentence. Conclusion is that more rare and ancient artefacts would be on display while premise is that the curators make the decision to buy them. The remaining part of the passage is the counterargument.

Conclusion of the counter-argument is that collectors and patrons decide the type of artefacts to buy and put on display. The premise is that this is the necessary condition on which they would agree to donate huge funds. Further, other statements explain why huge funds are required in running the museum. These statements also serve to add strength to the conclusion of this counterargument.

According to the question stem, the task is weaken the argument. So, we must focus on the main argument and see how even when curators decide to buy artefacts, more artefacts do NOT necessarily end up on display. Let's look at the options.

A - Notice that this statement informs us about a drawback that comes from the counterargument. Also, museum will have to sell some artefacts. That means number of artefacts may not increase but decrease.

B - This informs about the proportions of revenue that the museum collects. This is not what we are looking for.

C - People who visit this museum is out of scope of this passage.

D - Well, this may explain the conditions put by collectors and patron in the counter argument but does not attacks the main argument.

E - This may seem to attack an assumption in the main argument but we cannot be sure whether their knowledge is required to have more artefacts on display. Moreover, use of "sometimes" does not sounds very reliable.

Therefore, option A is the correct answer.

Sumi1010 · Answer

ZXSohGMAT2020 I think the correct answer should have been posted after a day or two.

Knowing the correct answer, we just try to extend our explanation for correct answer only. My attempt for this question. Premise : The curators run the museum from the money they get from the sales of the tickets . Now, Rich patrons donate in the museum and decide on what to be displayed. Conclusion : Curators could have done better in displaying rare and ancient artifacts. To weaken - We need to look for an option that says - Curators would not be any better than rich patrons in displaying rare artifacts. Look at the choices now. A. In the absence of the collectors and patrons’ funds, the museum will have to sell some existing artefacts to acquire newer ones. If there were no donations and sales from the tickets, the museum would have looked for alternate source i.e. selling some of the artifacts. Does not say anything how curators were NOT better in displaying the rare artifacts. B. The sales from the museum will only be able to compensate for about half the amount received from the funds given by the patrons. The donation = twice of sales of the tickets. This says that patrons are actually doing good in terms of money, but are they displaying right artifacts? don't know. C. The people who visit museums do not really have the knowledge to understand the true value of the rare artefacts on display. If the people don't understand the value , their decision to buy the tickets will not alter for the kind of artifacts. With the fixed source of money, curator can't do better. D. Collectors of rare artefacts and patrons of the museums rarely extend their support for reasons other than the sole rights to run the museum. We are not supposed to think of where else they extend support apart from running museum. E. Curators of the museum sometimes do not have complete knowledge of the artefacts displayed in the museum. "complete knowledge" is problematic here. You don't have to be expert on running a museum properly. IMO C I understand that C has some of the assumptions added, however, I am not convinced A to be any better than C. A does not even touch the conclusion. May I request some expert to help.

abhik1502 · Answer

would you pls elaborate how A is answer option.

There is 2 aspects what I can figure out of A

1. It might possible that museum would have to sell few of unworthy artifacts which are not ancient. And same will compensate the costing. In this case it doesnt weaken the argument of purchasing ancient ones on behalf of unworthy ones.
Argument is only concerned about ancient artifacts.

2. Answer options says, sell existing artifacts on behalf of " newer ones ". Are these newer ones are contemporary ones. In this case this option is not relevant, as we are concerned about ancient artifacts only.

Pls elaborate !

Moreover option E says about the knowledge. And question argument talks about decision making ability of Collectors and Patrons. So even if these Curators do have power to decide but don't have knowledge then their power might not fulfill the intended objective.

I think you really need to review answer options.

SohGMAT2020 · Answer

Here the conclusion is   if the decision was left to the curator of the museum, more rare and ancient artefacts would be on display.

So, to weaken the argument we need a some statement implying that  "if the decision was left to the curator of the museum, more rare and ancient artefacts would not be on display "

Now let's check the option A

A. In the absence of the collectors and patrons’ funds, the museum will have to sell some existing artefacts to acquire newer ones.

Here if the museum has to sell some existing artefacts for newer ones, it is supporting the conclusion that  "if the decision was left to the curator of the museum, more rare and ancient artefacts (which may be sold and replaced with newer ones) would not be on display " . Hence, this option looks good.

Unlike assumption question, weaken/strengthen questions does not need to have a fool proof conclusion. It just needs to support or weaken the conclusion

Nishkarsh1606 · Answer

This question has a design flaw. If the purpose of the last sentence is to suggest more in terms of number of arts, then the word greater should have been used. It is a pity that such an important aspect of a question has not been carefully addressed.

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
The running of museums is paid for by the collections from sales of tickets. - The upkeep that may include salaries, utilities, etc., is paid by collections, say $500k. 
Keeping a museum that also houses many rare and thus more expensive ancient artefacts operational requires huge funds which is a constraining factor in deciding the kind and number of artefacts to be displayed. - Basically, it highlights the need for funds. It mainly talks about a "museum that also houses many rare and thus more expensive ancient artifacts." How do you keep this museum? By buying more rare and expensive artifacts? Yes. For that we need money.  
Now, a small group of extremely rich collectors and patrons donate huge funds to the museum only in lieu of the right to decide the type of artifacts to be bought and displayed. - So people donate money but with a condition. What condition - they choose to decide what to buy and what to display. Maybe they don't trust others with their money (though this part is not important). 
However, if the decision was left to the curator of the museum, more rare and ancient artefacts would be on display. - Conclusion. It states a hypothetical situation in which if the decision were left to the curators (what decision? To buy the new and decide what to display), more rare and ancient artifacts would be on display. How? We don't know.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

A. In the absence of the collectors and patrons’ funds, the museum will have to sell some existing artefacts to acquire newer ones. - if they sell 5 to buy 2, the number is reduced. Weakener.

B. The sales from the museum will only be able to compensate for about half the amount received from the funds given by the patrons. - Say the tickets were $500k, and patrons were $1 million. Total of $1.5 milllion. This option essentially says that tickets will be $1 million ($500k existing from tickets + $500k equivalent (half of $1 Million) of the funds received). So, in total, they'll have $1 million instead of $1.5 million, which is not as bad as just ticket sales, which is $500k. So curators will still have some money (additional $500k) to buy new ones. Strengthener.

C. The people who visit museums do not really have the knowledge to understand the true value of the rare artefacts on display. - out of scope.

D. Collectors of rare artefacts and patrons of the museums rarely extend their support for reasons other than the sole rights to run the museum. - We know this from the passage. Distortion.

E. Curators of the museum sometimes do not have complete knowledge of the artefacts displayed in the museum. - Out of scope as the argument doesn't link their knowledge with the number of items on display. Despite limited knowledge, they can still display.

pavzagor · Answer

A bit confused here.
Why not B?

Rare artifacts are more expensive.
Sales will only compensate half of the donated money → less money total.
Displaying more rare artifacts requires more money.
Even if curators wanted to display more rare artifacts they wouldn’t be able to.

Do we need to assume that the curators will find additional funding somehow?

inventoredolores · Answer

It says more rare artifacts on the display and not more.

RiyaJ0032 · Answer

I do not understand why people are in favor of A based on just the quantity of artefact being reduced

They reasoned reducing the quantity of artefacts makes the curator not capable of stocking rare/ancient artefacts

But the Q never touches upon the quantity, it says the "kind" of artefact to be displayed will be different if curator comes in, rather than leaving the decision up to the patrons

Now for stocking rare artefacts, the stem tells us that the museum requires huge funds

so for the conclusion to hold, it is necessary that the curator has the necessary funds to stock these artefacts rather than having a high "Quantity" of these artefacts

Sure, the curator could trade in some existing artefacts for new ones, as long as they are not rare/ancient, while acquiring rare/ancient artefacts (which again strengthens the conclusion)

however, to effectively weaken we need to show the curator would not have the funds to display the rare pieces

which is only touched upon by D

and hence that should be the answer

Please if any expert could confirm this, will be a great help!!

MartyMurray 
 KarishmaB 
 GMATNinja 
 DmitryFarber 
 egmat 
 napolean92728

Thank you in advance

KarishmaB · Answer

The conclusion is talking about  the number of  rare artifacts

" if the decision was left to the curator of the museum,  more  rare and ancient artefacts would be on display."

So (A) makes sense.

dictanobis · Answer

The word 'more' in 'more rare' is used as an adjective to rare, rather than to indicate a higher number of artefacts. So I don't think attacking the number of artefacts in the museum would be the right answer.

Experts please clarify!

Experts please clarify!

KarishmaB · Answer

No, there are many indications to tell us that "more" refers to number. 
The standard comparative form for rare is rarer though 'more rare' is also used. But then 'more' is applicable to ancient too, which is awkward. Ancient already mean very old so we don't say 'more ancient' - we say older. 
Also, the argument isn't comparing the rarity or age of artefacts at all. Hence 'more' makes sense as a comparison of number only.

Confusion · Answer

Why is E not the right answe. If the curators have limited knowledge - won't they then not be able to select what is rare and what is not?

miag · Answer

Hi,

Lets break down the argument: 
 
 Housing rare/ancient artefacts is expensive 
 Rich patrons and collectors donate but only if they can control what is bought and displayed 
 Conclusion: If the curators controlled the decisions, more rare/ancient artefacts would be displayed  
 What do we need to weaken it?  We need to show that curator control will not lead to more rare artefacts being displayed
E): There are 2 issues with this option: 
i) sometimes doesn't imply that the curators are never able to assess well as to which artefacts to display
ii) talks about knowledge of currently displayed artefacts, not ability to choose new ones (so essentially is not a strong weakener)
 A): If curators have control then donations will reduce because patrons are not getting the control
Without these donations, museum will need to sell existing artefacts to buy new ones => lesser rare artefacts on display

Hope this helps!

RishabhAggarwal · Answer

I agree with your analysis. This question is poorly designed.

The running of museums is paid for by the collections from sales of

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