Hi.

Maybe nobody has answered this one before now because nobody else sees "the link" either.

I was able to get it "right", but maybe the link is not perfectly constructed.

Most of the answers can be eliminated easily.

A) No, that's not what underlies this argument. In fact the use of "generations" is mostly just a way of expressing that as time goes on the forgeries look less plausible.

B) This may be true, but it is not relevant here.

C) Actually the argument works fine if what is deemed aesthetically pleasing changes during those 25 years.

D) This is not what the argument is about.

E) So we are left with this, and I guess here's the link.

The art historian said, "As a result, blah blah blah..." So the conclusion could be said to be something along the lines of, "That's why a majority of forgeries are identified as such roughly twenty-five years after their creation."

Of course, if those who expose forgeries are guided by something other than aesthetic considerations, then the fact that modes of aesthetics change so that the aesthetics of a forgery no longer match what appeals to the eye is not why forgeries are usually identified as such roughly twenty-five years after their creation.

The only thing is that "As a result" is not exactly the same as "That's why". So maybe the link is not as strong as it might be.

Still, one can get the OA, and in GMAT land that's most of what matters.