BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

CR 1000 LSAT Test 20 Section III 13

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:56 pm
Thanked: 5 times
GMAT Score:720

CR 1000 LSAT Test 20 Section III 13

by singhag » Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:44 pm
One of the effects of lead poisoning is an inflammation of the optic nerve, which causes those who have it to see bright haloes around light sources. In order to produce the striking yellow effects in his "Sunflowers" paintings, Van Gogh used Naples yellow, a pigment containing lead. Since in his later paintings, Van Gogh painted bright haloes around the stars and sun, it is likely that he was suffering from lead poisoning caused by ingesting the pigments he used.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
(A) In Van Gogh's later paintings he painted some things as he saw them.
(B) Van Gogh continued to use paints containing lead after having painted the "Sunflowers" paintings.
(C) Van Gogh did not have symptoms of lead poisoning aside from seeing bright haloes around light sources.
(D) The paints Van Gogh used in the "Sunflowers" paintings had no toxic ingredients other than lead.
(E) The effects of Naples yellow could not have been achieved using other pigments.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:14 am
Location: Atlanta
Thanked: 17 times

by pandeyvineet24 » Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:52 am
IMO A.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:54 am
Thanked: 1 times

by Dobrov » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:20 am
I would go for A, too.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 9:49 am
Thanked: 4 times

by mridul_dave » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:32 am
'A'. Please give the OA.
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:10 am
Thanked: 2 times

by happybruce » Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:04 am
i think it's B.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:37 pm

my opinion!

by kiennguyen » Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:27 am
i think it's B b/c the effect of lead may be decreasing in a period of time. therefore, we need to know when he painted the stars and sun or whether he used the same kind of the pigment to answer this question.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:50 am

by delhiboy1979 » Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:02 am
I may be way off here, but I think it is E. If we negate this option, it means that the pigments used did not contain, so no side effects.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:33 am
IMO - A
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:42 am
Thanked: 11 times
Followed by:1 members

by hitmewithgmat » Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:56 am
IMO is B. Please provide OA.
Disclaimer-I am not a GMAT savvy yet, but I am learning everyday with my fellow beatthegmat citizens.

I AM DETERMINED TO CRASH/NIX OUT/ATTACK BRUTALLY/CRACK VERBAL PART OF GMAT. ROAR!
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:13 am

OA is A

by tempbabs_80 » Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:09 pm
OA is A. I also think the same.
Reason :
Stimulus says "those who have it to see bright haloes around light sources."

Star and sun are light sources. The author concludes that Van Gogh was suffering from lead poisoning caused by ingesting the pigments he used. This can happen if he painted some things as he saw them. Negating this answer undermines the conclusion.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:37 pm

can't agree with the OA!

by kiennguyen » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:40 pm
here is my opinions.

First, the haloes that he saw may not be caused by the poisoning lead but by the eyes diseases such as lacking vitamin A.( i don't really know what kinds of eyes diseases cause that effect but there are still some)

Second,"One of the effects of lead poisoning is an inflammation of the optic nerve, which causes those who have it to see bright haloes around light sources". Therefore, if he kept using the same kind of pigment containing lead, he would see haloes.

correct me if I'm wrong.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:18 pm

by [email protected] » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:33 am
can be "D" aswell...with a lot of deepdiving....

One way to rule out A will be the "some things" which may or may not include "bright haloes around light sources" at all....

Any case OA and more explanations from the experts pls...
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:25 am
Location: New York, US

by slash » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:34 pm
I would go for B. Using negate this choice can be assumed for the argument
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:56 pm
Thanked: 5 times
GMAT Score:720

by singhag » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:05 pm
My apologies for delay was on vacation...OA is A :D
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:19 pm
Choice B is wrong because of the following. Once he ingested the lead, the damage to the optic nerve may have been permanent (the evidence is not strong enough to establish that the damage was only short-term). Thus, the argument does not depend on the assumption that he continued to ingest lead.

On the other hand, if we deny A--if he did NOT paint things as he saw them, then it means he was painting bright haloes even though he was NOT seeing bright haloes. If he was NOT seeing bright haloes, then the argument (that he WAS suffering from damage that caused him to see bright haloes) is struck at its heart.

Because in the absence of choice A, the argument falls apart, A is a necessary assumption for the argument.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Post new topic Post Reply