Critical Reasoning

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.

IMO A.

I would go for A, too.

'A'. Please give the OA.

i think it's B.

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.

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.

IMO - A

IMO is B. Please provide OA.

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.

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.

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...

I would go for B. Using negate this choice can be assumed for the argument

My apologies for delay was on vacation...OA is A

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.