Well I guess C

- pradeep

I think that the answer is B.

A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509. It cannot have been painted earlier than 1507 because one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until that year. It cannot have been painted after 1509 because it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in that year.

Conclusion:
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509.
Premise 1:
It cannot have been painted earlier than 1507 because it has a coin that was not minted until that year.
Premise 2:
It cannot have been painted after 1509 because it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned in 1509.

So, until 1509 Michelangelo used pigment.
So, after 1507 coim was minted.




Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.
Stocks doeasnt play role because availability of the pigment does not cause usage. OUT


B. Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.
Michelangelo did work on the painting over the course of several years.
He began to paint in 1500 using pigment, and in 1507 he added the coin to the picture. conclusion does not work here. CORRECT


C. The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507.
This is the 1st premise, not assumption. OUT

D. The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age.
Fact but not the idea. OUT

E. Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509.
IRRELEVANT. OUT

B

IMO B as well for the same reasoning.
Good job 4meonly. U have explained well.

IMO B

Welldone 4meonly! Helps me understand the OA. Thanks!

Ans is B

Negation technique works fine here : Negating the assumption should weaken the conclusion.

(A' stands for negation of A)

A' : Stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509. : Availability does not guarantee the USAGE of the paint.

B' : Michelangelo Worked on the painting over the course of several years. : The argument says about " a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned ". If he painted the image with the abandoned pigment during the mentioned period and painted it using a different paint after the period, the conclusion will not hold. The argument does not say anything about the presence of the new paint.
eg: He used a particular paint from 1507 to 1509 and the paint was abandoned in 1509. He used a new paint to complete the painting.old paint can be found in the painting even though he fininshed the painting after 1509.

C' : The coin depicted in the painting was not known to general public in 1507. : We are talking not talking about the general public. Does not weaken the conclusion.

D' : The wooden panel on which the painting was executed can be tested accurately for age. : Does this weaken the conclusion? No. We are talking about coin and pigment, not panel.

E' : Michelangelo's painting style changed between 1507 and 1509. : Whether Michelangelo's painting style changed during this period does not relate to either the coin or the pigment. So, doesn't weaken the conclusion.


NOTE : many assumption questions can be solved using negation technique. Negating the assumption should weaken the conclusion.

I was between A and B, but B was my first choice.