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 artist 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 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.

I am posting this question as I am not convinced with OA and OE too. Need some discussions to understand the reasoning put by people here. Will post OA along with OE once few discussions are there. Requesting expert inputs as well.


OA C

Source: Magoosh