#12 - A 1955 analysis of paint samples from an Italian

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[mary_jando]

Hi,
Could you please explain this question and how you got the answer.
Thx

[Alex Bodaken]

mary_jando,

Thanks for your question, and sure thing! This is a "resolve the paradox" question that reads:

"A 1955 analysis of paint samples from an Italian painting found evidence of cobalt, suggesting the use of cobalt blue, a pigment not used in Europe before 1804. The painting was thus deemed to have been produced sometime after 1804. A 2009 analysis also found cobalt, but that analysis suggested that the painting might have been produced before 1804."

We should be able to have a really strong prephrase for what the paradox we are being asked to solve is. Essentially, we are trying to figure out how the 2009 analysis could have found cobalt/cobalt blue (indicating a post-1804 production) yet the analysis still suggests that the painting could have been produced pre-1804.

Remember that in a "resolve the paradox" question, we should be asking ourselves: "If this answer choice were true, would it resolve the discrepancy between the paradoxical items in the stimulus?" If the answer is yes, then that is our credited answer choice.

With that in mind, we can move to our answer choices:

(A) The 2009 analysis revealed that cobalt was located only in the topmost paint layer, which was possibly applied to conceal damage to original paint layers. - This is our credited answer choice. If this were true, it would mean that the item could have produced pre-1804, and then had cobalt added post-1804 to the top layer, thereby resolving our paradox.

(B) The 2009 analysis used sophisticated scientific equipment that can detect much smaller amounts of cobalt than could the equipment used for the 1955 analysis. - Even if this were true, the issue is that the 2009 analysis detected cobalt yet still placed the production as pre-1804. This answer choice doesn't help us resolve how that could happen, and so cannot be correct.

(C) The 2009 analysis took more samples from the painting than the 1955 analysis did, though those samples were smaller. - While more samples may seem to make the dating more accurate (and perhaps they would), this answer doesn't address the cobalt issue, and so cannot be our credited answer.

(D) Many experts, based on the style and the subject matter of the painting, have dated the painting to the 1700s. - This does not address our paradox involving cobalt, and so cannot be our correct answer choice.

(E) New information that came to light in the 1990s suggested that cobalt blue was used only rarely in Italy in the years immediately following 1804. - This answer choice still doesn't explain how there could be pre-1804 cobalt blue, and so doesn't help to resolve the paradox.

Hope that helps!
Alex

[seanonymous]

I'm having a small issue with this one. I initially hovered (A), and I understand why that would be correct. But my issue is that the prompt just says 'Cobalt was added on top of the original paint layers'. Theoretically, the artist who painted it could have added Cobalt 30 minutes after it dried in order to protect it. My issue, and I suppose I have issues like this throughout the test, is that I'm second guessing myself when it comes to things like assuming the word "original" implies a significant time-lapse between when the bottom layers were painted and when the top layer of protective Cobalt was added. It's one thing to be able to reflect on the question at length when the clock isn't ticking, but in the heat of the test I'm not sure how to get past over thinking things like this. Is there something I'm missing here that makes my problem with (A) a moot point? Thanks

[James Finch]

Hi Sean,

Resolve the paradox questions such as these can be tricky because, like Strengthen/Weaken correct answers, the correct answer choice doesn't always resolve the issue completely. Instead, what they will do is allow the possibility that all the premises in the stimulus can be true, which wouldn't make sense without that answer choice added as an additional premise. In other words, they don't always "resolve" the paradox, but must always reconcile it to the point where everything in the stimulus can be simultaneously true.

Here, answer choice (A) is implying that at some point after the original painting was completed, someone attempted to restore the painting by painting over damaged portions, using pigments that were not available during the period when the painting was originally painted. This would enable both the cobalt to be in the painting and the painting to have been finished before 1804, when cobalt pigments were introduced in Europe. It could have been the original painter who did it (possibly finishing it in 1803 and repairing it in 1804) or there could be a significant time lapse. Either way, this answer choice is the only one that allows an Italian painting dating from before 1804 to contain cobalt blue pigment.

Hope this helps!

[Kelly R]

Hi PS,

Is the implication here that the 1955 analysis was also detecting the cobalt in the topmost paint layer?

[Adam Tyson]

That is an implication of answer A, Kelly! That answer is suggesting that the cobalt is only in the top layer, so it may have been applied later and not been part of the original painting.

[Kelly R]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for the response. I understand that (A) specifically discusses cobalt within the context of the upper-most paint layer, but I'm struggling to understand how that reconciles the paradox here, since the fact that the cobalt was detected in the top-most layer in the 2009 analysis doesn't seem to explain the findings of the 1955 analysis, which indicate that the cobalt was a constituent part of the
actual paint applied in the original work (which would suggest a post-1804 production date).

[Adam Tyson]

Nothing about the 1955 analysis suggests that Kelly - you are adding your own assumptions there. In 1955, they found some cobalt - period. From that they concluded something about the age of the painting. But if it turns out that the cobalt was only in the top layer, as the 2009 analysis found, that would explain how they could have come to a different conclusion in 2009 than they did in 1955. Don't make assumptions that are not supported by the text!