Monalisa (nagu nanige istha)

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:02 pm
Thanked: 15 times

by life is a test » Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:03 am
gmatstud wrote:
aj5105 wrote:Skeptics say X-ray examinations do not show hidden mountains underneath the painting.

Which of the following, if true, would tend most to weaken the force of the skeptics’ objections?

(E) says Analysis relying on X rays can only detect certain pigments underneath the painting.
Sorry....am still confused :(

Skeptics are saying X-ray examinations DO NOT show hidden mountains underneath the painting

E says that X-Ray machines can only detect CERTAIN PIGMENTS underneath the painting. So if the mountains are painted using some different pigment, X-Ray machines would not be able to detect it and hence it strengthens what the Skeptics are saying.
Heres how I understand it:

claimants: there are mountains behind mona lisa's painting

skeptics: there are no hidden moutains in the pic because it does not come up in the xray --> this would be weakened as you say in E because the xray only detects white colour...

hope that helps.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

by turbo jet » Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:04 am
IMO: E

Clearly undermines and weakens.
Skeptic conclusion: No mountain detected
Skeptics premise: X rays

E undermines the skeptics premise.

Tip:The phrase "only" in Ans E limits the scope of X rays.

Cheers
TJ
:)
Life is Tom; I am Jerry ;)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:27 am

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 8:06 pm
It seems to me that the right answer is E