#24 - Surviving seventeenth century Dutch landscapes

[eober]

A question about the method we approached this question:

I selected answer choice C thinking it fit the argument overall better and assumed if minor artists' work were thrown away then attributing paintings to major artists should be wrong. Now I understand that I am wrong since paintings being thrown away does not necessarily make attributions to major artists wrong.

Would it be correct if I focused solely on conclusion when strengthening the question and not expect the rest of the elements in the stimulus to be in the answer choice?

(conclusion: "attributions of the 17th century Dutch paintings to major artists are wrong".)

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi eober,

Thanks for your question. While focusing on the conclusion is critical to strengthening the argument, it is also important to understand how the author reaches her conclusion. Sometimes, the correct answer choice will merely supply an additional premise that supports the conclusion (as is the case here). Other times, the correct answer choice will strengthen the conclusion by eliminating the possibility of a potential counterargument. While it is difficult to predict in advance precisely how the conclusion will be supported, arguments exhibiting glaring flaws in their logic typically benefit from defending answer choices. Such is not the case here, which is why the correct answer choice merely supplied an additional piece of evidence which, if true, strengthens the proposition that the attributions are erroneous.

By contrast, answer choice (C) does not affect the conclusion at all. If many of the paintings of minor artists were destroyed in the 18th century, this would explain why we don't have as many of those paintings as we would expect today. This does not corroborate the notion that the present-day attributions are erroneous; on the contrary - it provides an alternative explanation as to why we don't have as many landscape paintings of minor artists as we would expect. Thus, answer choice (C) weakens the argument, and is the Opposite answer.

Hope this helps!

[Jerrymakehabit]

Can someone please help me with this?

I am confused by this stimulus. Is the first sentence the conclusion or "attributions of the 17th century Dutch paintings to major artists are wrong" the conclusion? How do the two parts back up each other? I can not see the logic relationship between these two parts. Also, it would be appreciated if the answer choices can be briefly explained.

Thanks
Jerry

[Jerrymakehabit]

Capture.JPG

I figured it out. Sorry about the rough draft. The conclusion is about the erroneous part. The first premise threw me away. But I understand the logic of the author now.