Critical Reasoning

Museums that house Renaissance oil paintings typically store them in environments that are carefully kept within narrow margins of temperature and humidity to inhibit any deterioration. Laboratory tests have shown that the kind of oil paint used in these paintings actually adjusts to climatic changes quite well. If, as some museum directors believe, paint is the most sensitive substance in these works, then by relaxing the standards for temperature and humidity control, museums can reduce energy costs without risking damage to these paintings. Museums would be rash to relax those standards, however, since results of preliminary tests indicate that gesso, a compound routinely used by Renaissance artists to help paint adhere to the canvas, is unable to withstand significant variations in humidity.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

a) The first is an objection that has been raised against the position taken by the argument; the second is the position taken by the argument.

b) The first is the position taken by the argument; the second is the position that the argument calls into question.

c) The first is a judgment that has been offered in support of the position that the argument calls into question; the second is a circumstance on which that judgment is, in part, based.

d)The first is a judgment that has been offered in support of the position that the argument calls into question; the second is that position.

e) The first is a claim that the argument calls into question; the second is the position taken by the argument.


After reading this, I was able to make a few inferences.

1st BF: premise/condition for the 2nd BF
Both statements are coherent, that is they don't contradict and are towards the same viewpoint( of the music directors)
Under this perspective, A,B and E were straight out.

After this, things were tricky.
C suggests that paint's sensitive nature is based ON museum's energy saving nature-This sounds nonsensical if I rightly understood.

Via elimination, D alone is left. I understand that 1st boldface is a condition/judgement and that second is the position taken by music directors but I couldn't get why this position is challenged in the argument.

The music officials believe: If paint is the most sensitive substance in these works, then museums can reduce energy costs without risking damage to these paintings

Main point of argument: Since gesso, a compound routinely used by Renaissance artists to help paint adhere to the canvas, is unable to withstand significant variations in humidity, so the temperature and humidity control can not be laxed.

Music officials position is applicable IF the paint is most sensitive substance (if paint is not the most sensitive, they seem to be okay with that), whereas the argument's main point is based on gesso, a compound that helps paint adhere but not the paint. So, I think the argument doesn't question the officials position.

Please help me find the flaw in this reasoning.

Music officials position is applicable IF the paint is most sensitive substance (if paint is not the most sensitive, they seem to be okay with that), whereas the argument's main point is based on gesso, a compound that helps paint adhere but not the paint. So, I think the argument doesn't question the officials position.

Please help me find the flaw in this reasoning.

It might be helpful to break down the argument like this

position rebutted: museums can reduce energy costs without harming paintings

judgement in support of above position: paint is the most sensitive substance in these works

The fact that gesso can't withstand variation in humidity undermines the position that the paintings won't be harmed. Because the condition in which the paintings would be safe (The IF part of the construction) no longer holds.

Put another way, take a simple statement: If I win the lottery then I will be rich. If we learn that I won't win the lottery, I've undermined the preceding conclusion that I'll be rich, even though we haven't undermined the notion that I would have been rich had the condition prevailed. Rather, I've shown that the condition won't prevail, and so the conclusion won't occur either.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
position rebutted: museums can reduce energy costs without harming paintings

judgement in support of above position: paint is the most sensitive substance in these works

The fact that gesso can't withstand variation in humidity undermines the position that the paintings won't be harmed. Because the condition in which the paintings would be safe (The IF part of the construction) no longer holds.

Thanks a ton for the explanation.
To confirm, In the original argument, the position is rebutted, not the judgement/condition ?
However, if we can prove that the condition/judgement doesn't hold, likewise, we can rebut the position [as per the lottery example]

In case below, something like, The winner is already announced who happens to be in another city or the lottery is a Ponzi scheme etc undermine the conclusion that I'll be rich ?

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
Put another way, take a simple statement: If I win the lottery then I will be rich. If we learn that I won't win the lottery, I've undermined the preceding conclusion that I'll be rich, even though we haven't undermined the notion that I would have been rich had the condition prevailed. Rather, I've shown that the condition won't prevail, and so the conclusion won't occur either.

Thanks a ton for the explanation.
To confirm, In the original argument, the position is rebutted, not the judgement/condition ?
However, if we can prove that the condition/judgement doesn't hold, likewise, we can rebut the position [as per the lottery example]

In case below, something like, The winner is already announced who happens to be in another city or the lottery is a Ponzi scheme etc undermine the conclusion that I'll be rich ?

Exactly.