asthanap wrote:
In this case, I could reach to B & E but could not take it further to reach to correct answer.
Please advise.
Using computer techniques, researchers analyze layers of paint that lie buried beneath the surface layers of old paintings. They claim, for example, that additional mountainous scenery once appeared in Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, which was later painted over. Skeptics reply to these claims, however, that X-ray examinations of the Mona Lisa do not show hidden mountains.
Which of the following, if true, would tend most to weaken the force of the skeptics’ objections?
I put your doubts in a spoiler, not to spoil the process of solving the question for other members of the forum.
My approach:
Skeptics say that X-ray do not show hidden mountains -> we need to weaken this statement.
we can do so by proving that X-ray is not a good technique to analyze paintings
E states that X-ray detects lead-based white pigments, but what if the underneath layers are not painted with lead-based paint? Clearly it weakens the argument!
E it is.
let's see how others do not weaken the argument:
(A) There is no written or anecdotal record that Leonardo da Vinci ever painted over major areas of his Mona Lisa.
so what? maybe no one knew about that? moreover, it rather strengthens the argument than weaken.
(B) Painters of da Vinci’s time commonly created images of mountainous scenery in the backgrounds of portraits like the Mona Lisa.
but that does not mean that da Vinci did the same...he's very well known for not BEING like everyone else!
(C) No one knows for certain what parts of the Mona Lisa may have been painted by da Vinci’s assistants rather than by da Vinci himself.
this one is out of scope - as it talks about possibility that Mona Lisa might have been painted by da Vinci's assistants - nothing relevant to our argument
(D) Infrared photography of the Mona Lisa has revealed no trace of hidden mountainous scenery.
Infrared testing is out of scope here.