Why is the answer C?
Art Historian: Recently, computer analysis has revealed that a few of a famous Flemish artist's works are forgeries, and are actually the work of noted forger Elmyr de Hory. While such a development may emit violent reverberations through the art world, even those museums that have a wealth of the Flemish artists in their collections should not be overly concerned. Hundreds of this Flemish artist's works were tested to determine whether they were forgeries, yet only a slim few turned out to be actual forgeries. Thus, the master's reputation as one of the greatest artists humanity has ever produced will surely remain undiminished.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the art historian's conclusion?
A. The computer analysis involved is more likely to mistake an actual work as a forgery than to mistake a forgery as an actual work.
B. Many of the Flemish artist's well-known portraits are in the collection of private owners and were therefore not subjected to computer analysis.
C. Some of the works upon which the Flemish artist's standing rests were identified by the computer analysis to be the work of de Hory.
D. Some museums, worrying that their most prized painting from the Flemish artist would be deemed forgeries, and thus lose value, only offered up the artist's lesser known works for computer analysis.
E. Though few in the art world dispute the outcome of the computer analysis of the Flemish artist's work, many contend that the identified forgeries are not the work of Elmyr de Hory but some other highly skilled forger.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Could someone help with this CR question? Thanks!
This topic has expert replies
-
anncox1289
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:27 pm
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ErikaPrepScholar
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:03 am
- Thanked: 86 times
- Followed by:15 members
- GMAT Score:770
Hey anncox1289 and Vincen,
The historian's argument is that only a few of the artist's paintings were determined to be forgeries. Thus, because so many of the artist's paintings were actually his/hers, the artist's reputation is still intact. We need to weaken this argument.
A. If computer analysis is more likely to accidentally determine a real work is a forgery than that a forgery is a real work, this means that if any mistakes were made, it's most likely that some of the few "forgeries" were actually real works! This means that more of the artist's paintings were actually his/hers. This strengthens the argument. Eliminate.
B. If many of the artist's well-known paintings were not tested, we can infer that they may be forgeries. But we don't *know* that they are forgeries - we just know they weren't tested. If the paintings were tested and turned out to be forgeries, this would weaken the argument, but right now, it doesn't do much. Eliminate.
C. If some of the works that make this artist "a master" are actually not his/hers, this means that our artist isn't actually that great. Sure, only a few of the paintings are forgeries, but they're the best ones! It doesn't really matter if the not-so-great paintings belong to the artist if the really-great ones don't. This definitely weakens the argument. Correct.
D. Like B, this just tells us that some of the well-known paintings weren't tested and might be forgeries, not that they ARE. This isn't as strong as C. Eliminate.
E. If the forgeries identified were actually some other forger ... they're still forgeries, and there are still only a few of them. Eliminate.
The historian's argument is that only a few of the artist's paintings were determined to be forgeries. Thus, because so many of the artist's paintings were actually his/hers, the artist's reputation is still intact. We need to weaken this argument.
A. If computer analysis is more likely to accidentally determine a real work is a forgery than that a forgery is a real work, this means that if any mistakes were made, it's most likely that some of the few "forgeries" were actually real works! This means that more of the artist's paintings were actually his/hers. This strengthens the argument. Eliminate.
B. If many of the artist's well-known paintings were not tested, we can infer that they may be forgeries. But we don't *know* that they are forgeries - we just know they weren't tested. If the paintings were tested and turned out to be forgeries, this would weaken the argument, but right now, it doesn't do much. Eliminate.
C. If some of the works that make this artist "a master" are actually not his/hers, this means that our artist isn't actually that great. Sure, only a few of the paintings are forgeries, but they're the best ones! It doesn't really matter if the not-so-great paintings belong to the artist if the really-great ones don't. This definitely weakens the argument. Correct.
D. Like B, this just tells us that some of the well-known paintings weren't tested and might be forgeries, not that they ARE. This isn't as strong as C. Eliminate.
E. If the forgeries identified were actually some other forger ... they're still forgeries, and there are still only a few of them. Eliminate.
Erika John - Content Manager/Lead Instructor
https://gmat.prepscholar.com/gmat/s/
Get tutoring from me or another PrepScholar GMAT expert: https://gmat.prepscholar.com/gmat/s/tutoring/
Learn about our exclusive savings for BTG members (up to 25% off) and our 5 day free trial
Check out our PrepScholar GMAT YouTube channel, and read our expert guides on the PrepScholar GMAT blog
