Premise: The painting, estimated at 520 year, can be attributed to two possible artists
- One of the artists died one week after the painting had been commissioned.
- the other died 13 years later.
Because in those days oil paintings usually took a long time to complete,
it was probably the artist who died later who painted the Copper Butterfly. (Conclusion)
To support the conclusion, we must ensure that the painting was not done by the painter died first (i.e. add to conclusion).
Also, the task of painting actually took longer (i.e. add to premise that directly impacts the conclusion)
A. The artist who died later was murdered whereas the artist who died earlier passed away after contracting a disease that was plaguing the area.
The way artists died does not impact the argument.B. The artist who died earlier completed
a different oil painting one week before the Copper Butterfly was commissioned.
The different painting is not scoped in this argument.C. The oil paint used 520 years ago was produced by the artists themselves for each painting, in a chemical reaction that took eleven days to prepare.
Looks Correct. The task of painting actually took longer.D. The artist who painted the Copper Butterfly
did not paint another picture for the person who commissioned it.
Painting another picture does not impact anything on the argument related to the Copper Butterfly.E. The artist who died earlier was known for leaving his paintings
unsigned.Putting signature on the painting just tells the way to decipher the timeline . The concern is not about who had signed (or not) it, but about who actually had painted it.Thus,
C