V12-03

Official Solution:


Recently museums in Cremia were in the news when one of the most visited and flourishing museums of Cremia was found to be using fake paintings of renowned artists. A subsequent investigation uncovered that many museums resort to displaying fake paintings in order to generate revenue. The investigating officer concluded that this could stop if the public did not visit such museums.

The investigating officer's conclusion assumes that


A. Museums resort to such tactics to generate revenues.
B. The Administration does not have any mechanism to stop museums from displaying such fake paintings.
C. The people visiting these museums can find whether a museum displays fake paintings or not.
D. Not all museums resort to displaying fake paintings to generate revenue.
E. The museums will keep indulging in these malpractices if people do not stop visiting them.


A. This option just restates a fact already stated in the passage.

B. This statement may strengthen the argument, but is not a necessary assumption.

C. Correct. If the visitors could not distinguish fake paintings then the officer's conclusion would be wrong.

D. It does not matter how many museums resort to such practice. The argument is about how to stop such practice in those museums who resort to such practice.

E. This option is just a restatement of the conclusion, not an underlying assumption.


Answer: C

I think this is a high-quality question and I agree with explanation.

I think this is a high-quality question and I agree with explanation.

Hey, I am just not able to link hiw people will be able to identify duplicate. Because if they will be able to do that then it wouldn't have been an incident

Posted from my mobile device

queries....
The people visiting these museums can find whether a museum displays fake paintings or not.
if people can find whether the painting is fake ,so why is the author recommending people to stop going to museums??
he should have encouraged them?
this is little odd and a poor quality question

Could you clarify what your query is. From your post it is not clear where your doubt is. The structure here is quite straightforward.

Conclusion: If public stops visiting museums that display fake paintings, then the practice of displaying fake painitng would stop.

Assumption: Public can identify fake paintings. (Negation test: If they could not identify, they would not stop visiting these museums and the practice of displaying fake paintings would not stop.)

Where exactly is your doubt?

Karanagrawal P.S. Author is not recommending, encouraging or forbidding people to go or not to those museums. He is concluding something based on an assumption.

The answer is not clear. Where does it say on the argument that the visitors would stop visiting the museum if the visitors know that there are fake displays... Isn't that an assumption already? For instance, you may still want to go to the museum to see a fake /replica painting.

The conclusion of the officer is: IF the public did not visit such museums, the practice of showing fake displays would stop.

When the public visit the museums and can identify the fake displays, then they would stop visiting. If they cannot recognize at all, then they would continue to visit. We are here discussing about the assumption of the officer, not that of the writer of the passage - think what the officer had assumed when he made the conclusion.

Completely agree with the OE , there is no reason to doubt the quality of question.

A bit of pre thinking process can help one arrive the correct answer within seconds.. The only close option is (B), which sayantanc2k has clarified in this post Here

Thus in option (B) , it is highly possible that administration has all the necessary mechanism to control such unethical practices , however it might be such that only through public support can such unethical practices be completely contained... Now for that to be effective people must be aware of the difference between Fake and Original Paintings ( Which is option C )..

Further the assumption negation technique has been wonderfully explained in this post Negation

Hence there is no issue with the question in my opinion... Without knowledge of the diff between original and fake painting the conclusion cannot be arrived..



People = Plural noun meaning many individuals,
The public = singular noun of people ( the specific group of Museum's visitors )

Hence IMHO no issues with that as well...

Hi Experts,

I am not able to get this question completely. I am not getting how people identifying between fake and real paintings is affecting the conclusion?

Could someone elaborate on option E. Doesn't it strengthen the argument? Is the option wrong if it reframes the conclusion? because anyways assumption has to strengthen the argument.

To find the missing link in this or any assumption based question is it ok If I think it 'how' the conclusion will be reached by the given premise. Pls correct me or shed some light on finding the missing link.