Critical Reasoning

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.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
a) No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.
b) Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.
c) The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507.
d) The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age.
e) Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509.

IMO B

Because if Michelangelo worked on any painting for 3 - years then it is possible that it started in 1506 with the earlier paint and ended with new paint in 1511

IMO B.

A--irrelevant to whether Michelangelo would have used them
B--works. If he DID work on it over several years, then both premises are still true, but the conclusion about when the painting was completed is no longer supported.
C--fits the timeline, but not required for the argument to be true
D--the age of the panel is irrelevant
E--painting style is irrelevant

Bill@VeritasPrep wrote:A--irrelevant to whether Michelangelo would have used them
B--works. If he DID work on it over several years, then both premises are still true, but the conclusion about when the painting was completed is no longer supported.
C--fits the timeline, but not required for the argument to be true
D--the age of the panel is irrelevant
E--painting style is irrelevant

How can we say this "but the conclusion about when the painting was completed is no longer supported"

From the argument we say painting started at Jan2nd 1507 and ended on Dec 31 1508... here we say more than 1.5yrs so we can use several years....

nandy1984 wrote:

Bill@VeritasPrep wrote:A--irrelevant to whether Michelangelo would have used them
B--works. If he DID work on it over several years, then both premises are still true, but the conclusion about when the painting was completed is no longer supported.
C--fits the timeline, but not required for the argument to be true
D--the age of the panel is irrelevant
E--painting style is irrelevant

How can we say this "but the conclusion about when the painting was completed is no longer supported"

From the argument we say painting started at Jan2nd 1507 and ended on Dec 31 1508... here we say more than 1.5yrs so we can use several years....

Answer lies in the first sentence:

A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509.

AFTER 1507 BUT BEFORE 1509. This means 1507 < PAINTING < 1509. This means, painting painted in 1508

Furthermore,

a) No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.

- I do not think we say that since the stocks were available, painters would have used the stocks!

Comes down to A/B

IMO: B

should look at https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr- ... t2495.html...