A 17th century artist

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

A 17th century artist

by gmatdriller » Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:21 am
A fossil with the name of a certain seventeenth-century artist was found to contain traces of a pigment called hangzhou Zaceous. Because this pigment was unavailable until the twentieth century, it can be inferred that the fossil was actually painted by someone else.

Which of the following assumptions was made on the basis of the conclusion above?

A. Imitations of seventeenth-century fossils were made in the twentieth century and later.
B. The artist whose name was inscribed on the mural was accomplished but not innovative.
C. Traces of the hangzhou Zaceous pigment were found throughout the fossil.
D. The hangzhou Zaceous pigment was used when the fossil was originally painted.
E. The hangzhou Zaceous pigment was combined with other pigments in a manner typical of the seventeenth century.

Can someone please analyze the choices...
OA is D.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 6:33 am
Thanked: 1 times

by anirudh.n » Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:01 am
IMO D...
A- is irrelevant as the premise states that this pigment was unavailable till 20th century.
B- is also irrelevant, it does not matter whether the author was a accomplished or not.
C- This is some what related to the premise but does not give a convincing assumption to arrive at the conclusion
D- correct, as the pigment was unavailable till the 20th century but the fossil contains the pigment, the fossil might have been painted by someone else in the 20th century when the pigment was actually available. D merely states that the pigment was used in painting the fossil, hence shows that the pigment was available.
E- irrelevant

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:01 pm

by [email protected] » Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:22 am
Thanks !!!a very good reasoning

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

by gmatdriller » Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:42 am
Hi Anirudh,

the inference (painting done by someone else) relies on the fact that the pigment was only available
in the 20th century-3 centuries away and the artist couldn't have lived that long.
However, if you negate C (the pigment was not used when the fossil was originally painted), does that
destroy the argument? After all, the pigment could have been used in the 21st century and we could still infer that the painting was done by someone else...

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 6:33 am
Thanked: 1 times

by anirudh.n » Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:27 pm
Gmatdriller,

You have negated the sentence in the extreme possible way. The negation must be 'the pigment might not have been necessarily used when the fossil was originally painted' when you use this to negate the conclusion, the conclusion does not become meaningful, rather it supports the conclusion. Hence C is not the correct answer. When you use the negation technique it must make the conclusion look absurd and not help by being a premise to arrive at the conclusion.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.