Last visit was: 26 Apr 2026, 08:58 It is currently 26 Apr 2026, 08:58
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
505-555 (Easy)|   Assumption|      
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 26 Apr 2026
Posts: 109,837
Own Kudos:
811,398
 [5]
Given Kudos: 105,896
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 109,837
Kudos: 811,398
 [5]
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recogniti 14 Aug 2019, 02:01
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

79% (01:23) correct 21% (01:48) wrong based on 536 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recognition as artists. But since graffiti is vandalism, painting graffiti is inherently an act of rebellion and lawbreaking. For this reason, painting graffiti is not art.

Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reason given for that conclusion?

A. Some graffiti is painted in remote places, where it will not be used by any law enforcer or anyone else.

B. Some painters of graffiti are more concerned than others with the illegal nature of the paintings they produce.

C. Painters of graffiti should be more concerned with the illegality of their paintings than they currently are.

D. An object is not an art object if its maker might be motivated primarily by questions of whether or not creating that object is permissible.

E. Artists are not concerned with the monetary value of their products.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
D
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 26 Apr 2026
Posts: 4,846
Own Kudos:
9,186
Given Kudos: 226
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,846
Kudos: 9,186
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recogniti 14 Aug 2019, 02:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recognition as artists. But since graffiti is vandalism, painting graffiti is inherently an act of rebellion and lawbreaking. For this reason, painting graffiti is not art.

Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reason given for that conclusion?

A. Some graffiti is painted in remote places, where it will not be used by any law enforcer or anyone else.

B. Some painters of graffiti are more concerned than others with the illegal nature of the paintings they produce.

C. Painters of graffiti should be more concerned with the illegality of their paintings than they currently are.

D. An object is not an art object if its maker might be motivated primarily by questions of whether or not creating that object is permissible.

E. Artists are not concerned with the monetary value of their products.
Show more

The right answer here should be D. As with all "find the assumption" questions, you're looking for a link between the conclusion, and the primary reason given for this conclusion. What helps in this particular case is that the question stem makes this abundantly clear.
In this case, the conclusion is that "Graffiti is NOT art", and this is arrived at because "Graffiti is inherently law-breaking". However, there is no link between something being law breaking and art or not, and this is therefore what we're looking for.

A - It does not matter where it is used, we want a (negative) link between being law-breaking and being art. OUT

B - Maybe some painters are concerned about the legality, but it does not tell us about whether this makes them consider graffiti art or not. OUT

C - It may well be true that painters of graffiti should be more concerned, but it says nothing about whether this concern is about whether their work is art or not. OUT

D - This option clearly addresses the conclusion - about what can be considered art or not, and makes the (negative) link between legality and art. CORRECT

E - But money has nothing to do with art based on the premises. OUT

- Matoo
User avatar
Manukaran
User avatar
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Last visit: 06 Jan 2020
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 12
Posts: 35
Kudos: 7
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recogniti 14 Aug 2019, 04:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi MatooCrackVerbal, thanks for your explanation. I am getting confused with option D, because according to me, correct assumption should be opposite of what is given in D:

An object is not an art object if its maker might be motivated primarily by questions of whether or not creating that object is permissible.

Putting all pieces together:
i) An object is an art object if its maker is motivated by whether or not creating that object is permissible.
ii) Painters of graffiti are not motivated by whether or not creating that object is permissible (this is given in the passage)
iii) If we combine the above two, then we can conclude that painting graffiti is not art (this is the conclusion of the passage).

Can you suggest where I am going wrong?

Also, Bunuel, can you provide the official explanation as well.
User avatar
azhrhasan
User avatar
Joined: 13 Apr 2019
Last visit: 13 Sep 2024
Posts: 107
Own Kudos:
168
Given Kudos: 93
Location: Canada
Concentration: Marketing, Operations
Schools: Rotman '23 (D) Ivey '22 (D) Schulich Sept '23 (WA)
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.5
WE:General Management (Retail: E-commerce)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Rotman '23 (D) Ivey '22 (D) Schulich Sept '23 (WA)
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
Posts: 107
Kudos: 168
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recogniti 15 Aug 2019, 00:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MatooCrackVerbal
Quote:
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recognition as artists. But since graffiti is vandalism, painting graffiti is inherently an act of rebellion and lawbreaking. For this reason, painting graffiti is not art.

Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reason given for that conclusion?

A. Some graffiti is painted in remote places, where it will not be used by any law enforcer or anyone else.

B. Some painters of graffiti are more concerned than others with the illegal nature of the paintings they produce.

C. Painters of graffiti should be more concerned with the illegality of their paintings than they currently are.

D. An object is not an art object if its maker might be motivated primarily by questions of whether or not creating that object is permissible.

E. Artists are not concerned with the monetary value of their products.


The right answer here should be D. As with all "find the assumption" questions, you're looking for a link between the conclusion, and the primary reason given for this conclusion. What helps in this particular case is that the question stem makes this abundantly clear.
In this case, the conclusion is that "Graffiti is NOT art", and this is arrived at because "Graffiti is inherently law-breaking". However, there is no link between something being law breaking and art or not, and this is therefore what we're looking for.

A - It does not matter where it is used, we want a (negative) link between being law-breaking and being art. OUT

B - Maybe some painters are concerned about the legality, but it does not tell us about whether this makes them consider graffiti art or not. OUT

C - It may well be true that painters of graffiti should be more concerned, but it says nothing about whether this concern is about whether their work is art or not. OUT

D - This option clearly addresses the conclusion - about what can be considered art or not, and makes the (negative) link between legality and art. CORRECT

E - But money has nothing to do with art based on the premises. OUT

- Matoo
Show more

Hi MatooCrackVerbal
As with all "find the assumption" questions, you're looking for a link between the conclusion, and the primary reason given for this conclusion

Is this always true for defender assumptions as well ? By defender assumptions, I mean the assumptions which refute any other premise than the one's listed in the stimulus.
User avatar
Manukaran
User avatar
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Last visit: 06 Jan 2020
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 12
Posts: 35
Kudos: 7
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recogniti 15 Aug 2019, 10:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Manukaran
Hi MatooCrackVerbal, thanks for your explanation. I am getting confused with option D, because according to me, correct assumption should be opposite of what is given in D:

An object is not an art object if its maker might be motivated primarily by questions of whether or not creating that object is permissible.

Putting all pieces together:
i) An object is an art object if its maker is motivated by whether or not creating that object is permissible.
ii) Painters of graffiti are not motivated by whether or not creating that object is permissible (this is given in the passage)
iii) If we combine the above two, then we can conclude that painting graffiti is not art (this is the conclusion of the passage).

Can you suggest where I am going wrong?

Also, Bunuel, can you provide the official explanation as well.
Show more
Hi VeritasKarishma, can you clear my above doubt?
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 26 Apr 2026
Posts: 4,846
Own Kudos:
9,186
 [1]
Given Kudos: 226
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,846
Kudos: 9,186
 [1]
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recogniti 15 Aug 2019, 22:33
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Manukaran
Hi MatooCrackVerbal, thanks for your explanation. I am getting confused with option D, because according to me, correct assumption should be opposite of what is given in D:

An object is not an art object if its maker might be motivated primarily by questions of whether or not creating that object is permissible.

Putting all pieces together:
i) An object is an art object if its maker is motivated by whether or not creating that object is permissible.
ii) Painters of graffiti are not motivated by whether or not creating that object is permissible (this is given in the passage)
iii) If we combine the above two, then we can conclude that painting graffiti is not art (this is the conclusion of the passage).

Can you suggest where I am going wrong?

Also, Bunuel, can you provide the official explanation as well.
Show more

Hi Manukaran,

I think you may have got the first of your points a bit off. It says that an object is NOT an art object if the maker is motivated by whether creating it is permissible. In fact, as per the premises, we know that painters of graffiti ARE motivated by whether this is allowed or not, because they have deliberately chosen to break vandalism laws.

So if painters have specifically chosen to break the law, and if law-breaking as a decision is part of what makes something not art, it leads to the conclusion that graffiti is not art.

- Matoo
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 26 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,441
Own Kudos:
79,416
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,441
Kudos: 79,416
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recogniti 16 Aug 2019, 04:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recognition as artists. But since graffiti is vandalism, painting graffiti is inherently an act of rebellion and lawbreaking. For this reason, painting graffiti is not art.

Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reason given for that conclusion?

A. Some graffiti is painted in remote places, where it will not be used by any law enforcer or anyone else.

B. Some painters of graffiti are more concerned than others with the illegal nature of the paintings they produce.

C. Painters of graffiti should be more concerned with the illegality of their paintings than they currently are.

D. An object is not an art object if its maker might be motivated primarily by questions of whether or not creating that object is permissible.

E. Artists are not concerned with the monetary value of their products.
Show more

An assumption is just that - what the author assumes (but doesn't mention) for the sake of his/her argument. It is what he/she assumes is true. An assumption is a missing necessary premise.
We need the assumption from the options. Hence we need what must be true.

A technique to figure out the assumption is assumption negation technique (ANT). Negate the option and see if the conclusion falls apart. If it does, that means the option is necessary for the conclusion to hold and hence is the assumption. Though useful sometimes, I am not a huge fan of ANT. Sometimes, it complicates matters unnecessarily.

Some painters of graffiti have been winning recognition as artists.
But graffiti is vandalism, an act of rebellion and lawbreaking.

Conclusion: Painting graffiti is not art

The argument says that because graffiti is act of rebellion, it is not art.
What is the assumption? The argument assumes that if an act is an act of rebellion, it is not art.
That is pretty much what option (D) says. Option (D) is the assumption here.

If you negate (D), you get
D. An object is an art object if its maker might be motivated primarily by questions of whether or not creating that object is permissible.
This says that if an act is an act of rebellion, it is art.
In that case, our conclusion cannot hold that painting graffiti is not art. Since it is an act of rebellion, it must be art.

Answer must be (D).
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 26 Apr 2026
Posts: 109,837
Own Kudos:
811,398
Given Kudos: 105,896
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 109,837
Kudos: 811,398
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recogniti 19 Aug 2019, 23:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recognition as artists. But since graffiti is vandalism, painting graffiti is inherently an act of rebellion and lawbreaking. For this reason, painting graffiti is not art.

Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reason given for that conclusion?

A. Some graffiti is painted in remote places, where it will not be used by any law enforcer or anyone else.

B. Some painters of graffiti are more concerned than others with the illegal nature of the paintings they produce.

C. Painters of graffiti should be more concerned with the illegality of their paintings than they currently are.

D. An object is not an art object if its maker might be motivated primarily by questions of whether or not creating that object is permissible.

E. Artists are not concerned with the monetary value of their products.
Show more

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:



Reading the question: we are presented with a thin argument. The first sentence gives an introduction and the second two sentences are argument. Since we have a pseudo-syllogistic argument, as we did in Drivers Over 30 and Taxes and Growth, we can analyze the argument using term matching:



The missing connection is between "lawbreaking" and what constitutes art. The author assumes that you can be an artist only if you're not a lawbreaker. The clause, "painting graffiti is inherently an act of rebellion and lawbreaking," may sound like an opinion, but it's a piece of evidence in this argument.

Applying our filter: answer choices (A) through (D) all touch on both graffiti and the law in some fashion. The one that matches our expectation most closely is (D). It doesn't use the word lawbreaking, but it hits on the key matter, the conditional definition of art: it's not art if the maker is a rebel.

Logical proof: we can prove our answer using the second step of the Critical Reasoning Strategy, logical proof. We apply the negation test. If the statement in choice (D) not true--it's art regardless of whether the creator is a rebel or whether it's legal or why it's done--then the argument in the prompt crumbles. That's proof that the argument assumes the statement in choice (D).

The correct answer is (D).

Show Spoiler
Attachment:
image006.jpg
image006.jpg [ 11.13 KiB | Viewed 6218 times ]
avatar
RemcoVT
avatar
Joined: 28 Oct 2019
Last visit: 15 Jan 2020
Posts: 5
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 5
Kudos: 0
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recogniti 11 Nov 2019, 08:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The right answer here should be D.

In this case, the conclusion is that "Graffiti is NOT art", and this is arrived at because "Graffiti is inherently law-breaking". So keep this in mind

However, there is no link between something being law breaking and art or not, and this is therefore what we're looking for.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 19,425
Own Kudos:
1,010
 [1]
Posts: 19,425
Kudos: 1,010
 [1]
In recent years, some painters of graffiti have been winning recogniti 23 Mar 2021, 09:25
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
506 posts
bhanu29
361 posts