In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we

Question

In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we find several recurrent items: a satin jacket, a certain Turkish carpet, and wooden chairs with lion’s head finials. These reappearing objects might seem to evince a dearth of props. Yet we know that many of the props Vermeer used were expensive. Thus, while we might speculate about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects, it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.
(B) The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him.
(C) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.
(D) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him.
(E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

You're right that this question is slightly different than the "typical" GMAT assumption question, but (E) actually does give us new info that is not found in the passage.

This question asks us to find an assumption that, if true, ensures that conclusion  follows logically . In other words, which answer choice GUARANTEES that the conclusion is right? You rarely find GMAT questions written like this, but it's still valuable practice -- after all, you can use the same process to deeply understand the author's argument, read the exact language of the question, and use process of elimination on the answer choices.

Here's a breakdown of the author's argument:

First, we get some background info: Vermeer used certain props in multiple different paintings.  
 The author concludes that "it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used."  
 He/she supports this conclusion by saying that "we know that many of the props Vermeer used were expensive."

So, which answer choice  guarantees  that Vermeer didn't reuse the objects because he lacked props?
 
Hmm, this actually makes it seem like Vermeer DID lack props -- so much so that he had to borrow the ones that he used! (A) definitely doesn't guarantee that he had more than enough props, so (A) is out.

Cool, so Vermeer had these items at his disposal -- but did he have OTHER available items that he could have used? We have no idea. So, it could be that Vermeer faced a lack of props, and that's why he reused items across multiple paintings.

(B) doesn't guarantee that the author's conclusion is right, so eliminate (B).

This one is similar to (A) -- if Vermeer had to borrow some objects from his sister, maybe he really was short on props to use in his paintings. Eliminate (C).

This is nice, but again, it doesn't guarantee that the author's conclusion holds up. Maybe Vermeer had a sentimental attachment to these items BECAUSE they were the only ones he had. If you assume (D), it's still possible that Vermeer faced a prop shortage -- so, (D) can't be the correct answer.

(E) tells us that if Vermeer faced a shortage of props, we absolutely would  not  see any expensive props in his paintings.

But there ARE expensive props in his paintings -- which means that it's  impossible  that he had a prop shortage. Therefore, there  must  be some other reason that he used the recurring props.

Notice that this connection isn't fully fleshed out in the passage. The author mentions that the props are expensive, but doesn't actually explain how that fact means that something other than a lack of props caused Vermeer to use the same objects multiple times.

If you assume (E), then the author's conclusion  must  hold up. So, (E) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

tarunanandani · Answer

IMO E.

Observation: A dearth of props in the paintings.
Premise: Props used were expensive.
Conclusion: The dearth was not because of lack of props.

Logical gap : If there is lack of props then all the props should be not expensive.

Only option E fills this logical gap and hence should be the correct answer.

rish2708 · Answer

E for me too!! But I came to this choice through poe.

Could anyone explain the meaning of the option?

Posted from my mobile device

yash312 · Answer

IMO E

prethink: author states that props were expensive and hence props does not reprsent dearth of prop .Author assumes that if Vermeer used expensive props, he had money to buy other props.

E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them.

Skywalker18 · Answer

In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we find several recurrent items: a satin jacket, a certain Turkish carpet, and wooden chairs with lion’s head finials. These reappearing objects might seem to evince a dearth of props. Yet we know that many of the props Vermeer used were expensive. Thus, while we might speculate about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects, it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used.

Type- assumption
Boil it down- it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used.
Pre-thinking- if Vermeer used expensive props, then he did not have a lack of props

(A) Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.- incorrect- does not bridge the gap
(B) The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him. - incorrect - the argument works even if recurrent items were available most of the time
(C) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.- irrelevant
(D) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him. - irrelevant
(E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them.- correct

An explanation of option E- Let us assume that Costs of recurrent items were - satin jacket(5000$), certain Turkish carpet(5000$) and wooden chairs with lion’s head finials(1000$)
Vermeer spent upwards of 10,000$ for the props used.
So, it seems although he could have bought a number of cheaper props, he bought ONLY a few expensive ones to portray his views/thoughts.

Answer E

KanishkM · Answer

Conclusion been-> It was not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used

I felt, B C and D were giving the reasons for this ->
while we might  speculate   about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects,
(B) The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him.
(C) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.
(D) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him.

My bottom 2 were A and E.

(A) Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.
Again doesn't this answer the speculation ??

(E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would  not  see expensive props in  any   some   of them.
Now ideally if we negate this, It will say that even though props were not abundant, he still was getting(buying ) them from somewhere.

Am i correct in my reasoning??

Hi  Yash312 , Can you please share your thoughts on above.

yash312 · Answer

Hi
 KanishkM

well your reasoning is correct 
but your negation seems to be MOST STRONG Negation , instead of LEAST NEGATION

Negated version of E: If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would see  some  expensive props

remember we have to perform  Least negation  and  not Most negation 
negation of not----some not or Some yes

KanishkM · Answer

Hi Yash312 Thank you so much for providing your invaluable insight. You are absolutely correct at the your point

. The way how you negated the sentence, makes lot of sense. Major Takeaway: I should not 100 % negate the sentence, If even weak negation helps, I should be good.

GMATGuruNY · Answer

If A, then B can be rephrased as its CONTRAPOSITIVE: If not B, then not A. For a discussion of the contrapositive, check my post here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/for-a-trade- ... 45-20.html Premise: The props used in Vermeer's painting were small in number but expensive . Conclusion: It was not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used. The argument assumes that the blue portions are linked: expensive props = no lack of props E, rephrased as its contrapositive: If we see expensive props in some of Vermeer's paintings, then a dearth of props did not account for the recurrent objects. The contrapositive of E links EXPENSIVE PROPS to NO LACK OF PROPS and thus constitutes the assumption discussed above. E

Foreheadson · Answer

If  GMATNinja  could respond to this, it would be priceless. as he suggested using LSAT as a great tool for gmat prep.

I always see this type of mismatch between LSAT and Gmat. I would argue, that answer choice E offers a conclusion, rather than a premise. A typical GMAT question would always suggest a premise on this type of question. E just partly repeats the conclusion of the author already stated in the argument. Please tell me if I am going crazy or is this type of difference common.

Posted from my mobile device

VKat · Answer

Hello team,

Could you please let me know how to negate option E?
I always struggle with negating conditional based options.

What I do is-

Actual sentence: If A, then B.
In my opinion, negation will be - If A, then not B.

In this case, negation will be(as per my understanding),

If a dearth of props accounted for recurrent objects, we would see expensive props.
So this negation is breaking down the conclusion, hence it is my answer.

Am I correct in my negation part?

unraveled · Answer

In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we find several recurrent items: a satin jacket, a certain Turkish carpet, and wooden chairs with lion’s head finials. These reappearing objects might seem to evince a dearth of props. Yet we know that many of the props Vermeer used were expensive. Thus, while we might speculate about exactly why Vermeer worked with a small number of familiar objects, it was clearly not for lack of props that the recurrent items were used.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Vermeer  often borrowed  the expensive props he represented in his paintings.
(B) The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were  always available  to him.
(C) The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were  owned by Vermeer’s sister .
(D) The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had  special sentimental importance  for him.
(E) If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them. - CORRECT. Although this is an obvious reflection after reading the passage, I reached out to this though POE. All others are irrelevant or bring additional sources/parameters to justify the conclusion.

Answer E.

GMATNinja · Answer

While this question includes the word "assumed," it is NOT asking for an assumption on which the argument depends. So, the negation test is completely useless to answer this question. (As a side note: the negation test is tricky to apply even under the best of circumstances, so it's usually not worth your time anyway).

For an explanation of the question and answer choices, check out  this post .

I hope that helps a bit!

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we

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 Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In the paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch artist Vermeer, we

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