#21 - It is very difficult to prove today that a painting

[James Finch]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (A)

The important thing to notice here is that we are asked by the question to weaken this argument by attacking a specific premise, that the traditional attribution should carry special weight. And as we're given the reason why it does carry that special weight (presumed historical continuity), we should also know how to attack it: eliminate the presumption or value of historical continuity. So our correct answer choice will somehow do this.

Answer choice (A): Art dealers have always been shady and willing to bump up a painting's value by misattributing its provenance to more famous (and lucrative) origins. This seems to fit; if art dealers of the past were willing to lie to increase the sales price, then historical continuity isn't particularly valuable and could be questioned, as the very first sale could have been based on a lie. A Contender.

Answer choice (B): Claims that at the time of creation, witnesses exist to that creation. This would serve to bolster the importance of historical continuity, and serve to strengthen, not weaken, the value of traditional attribution. Immediate Loser.

Answer choice (C): It's difficult to tell who painted a painting just by looking at the work itself. If anything, this would make the historical continuity more important, by making present-day evaluations less reliable. Loser.

Answer choice (D): Difficult to parse on first glance, but is actually saying that attribution determines how highly critics think of attributes of a painting. The difference in a 3-year-old flinging paint against a wall versus a Jackson Pollock drip painting comes to mind. None of that matters to what we're being asked to do, which is to make traditional attribution less important. Irrelevant to the question, so also a Loser.

Answer choice (E): Again, difficult to parse, but ultimately irrelevant. This answer choice is dealing with attribution when assistants work on a painting alongside the recognized painter; we're concerned with the recognized painters, not giving assistants credit on painting they helped create. Loser.

So by process of elimination, (A) is the correct answer choice, as it is the only one that directly attacks the historical continuity that grants traditional attribution special weight.

Hope this clears things up!

[Garrett K]

Hey PowerScore,

Can you please explain how I would pre phrase the answer to question 21? The question stem was really confusing to me. And in the stimulus how would should I translate the phrase "special weight". I might be overthinking this question, but can you please give me a detailed analysis for how you would solve this question?


Thanks,
Garrett

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hey Garrett,

This is indeed a rather challenging question. Let's simplify the stimulus first:

The author discusses the issues inherent in attributing unsigned paintings to particular artists. She argues that the traditional attribution should have special weight, i.e. prevail over other suggested attributions, because the traditional attribution carries the presumption of historical continuity. In other words, if painting X has always been attributed to, say, Caravaggio, keep it that way unless you can persuasively argue that it was painted by... I don't know. Carducci.

The question stem asks us to support the position that the traditional attribution of a disputed painting should not have special weight. In other words, we are expected to weaken the course of action outlined in the stimulus. In formulating a prephrase, ask yourself this: under what circumstances would the traditional attribution be potentially misleading, and lead to an incorrect attribution? While I wouldn't necessarily prephrase the wording of the correct answer choice, this line of reasoning can lead you in the right direction.

Does this make sense? Let me know!

[Garrett K]

Yea it helps a lot. Thanks!

[Johnclem]

Hi ,
For this question are we being asked to weaken a premise ? isnt the last sentence the conclusion ? This is how I organized the argument .



1 - it's very difficult to prove a painting done 200-300 yrs ago.
2- traditional attribution is givin special weight, since it carries the presumption of historical continuity.

C: an art historian arguing for a deattribution will generally convince other art historians only if he or she can persuasively argue for a special reattribution .


Thanks
John

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi John,

You're more being asked to weaken a sub-conclusion, here. You're right in labeling the last sentence the ultimate conclusion, but remember that it is possible to have more than one conclusion in a stimulus! Take a look at it in that context, and see if it makes a bit more sense.

[jlam061695]

Wouldn't E be an example of a circumstance in which the traditional interpretation might be misleading? Because if the resulting works can only properly attributed to the masters and no one else, then the traditional interpretation (which could be that unsigned paintings are by either the masters or obscure artists or a mixture) should not have special weight because it may be wrong.

[Claire Horan]

Answer choice (E) says that it is proper to attribute work to masters and not their assistants. This doesn't weaken the idea that we should presume the original attribution is correct. The answer choice doesn't suggest that the assistants were ever given credit in the past. It doesn't suggest a difference between past and present attribution that would cause us to consider the present attribution to be as strong or stronger than the past attribution.

[willmcchez]

The reason that I eliminated A as a possible response -- in spite of the fact that it otherwise logically weakened the conclusion -- was the fact that the credited response states that "Art dealers have always been led by..."

Because "art dealers" were not mentioned anywhere in the stimulus, only "art historians," I assumed this was incorrect on the basis that it was a "shell game" of sorts.

Additionally, the credited response certainly makes sense and it was a strong contender for me, but I feel as though it required me bringing in too much outside information about the art world and the significance of art dealers within it for A to be the credited response.

SOS.

[Adam Tyson]

I got your signal and I'm coming to the rescue, wimcchez! It appears that your concern here is that answer A brings in new information, not previously addressed in the stimulus, and that makes you suspicious. If this question was a Must Be True, or a Flaw in the Reasoning, or a Method of Reasoning question, to name a few types in our "first family" of question types, you would be right to focus on new info as being a problem in an answer.

However, this question is NOT in that family. Instead, it is a Weaken question, which, like Strengthen and Justify the Conclusion and Resolve the Paradox, actually REQUIRES new info! In order to weaken a conclusion, you have to say something that wasn't already said, something new. Just like you cannot help an argument by simply repeating what the author said, you cannot hurt an argument by just repeating what they said either. You have to bring in something new.

Answer A does that by telling us that there may have been inaccuracies even 200-300 years ago, if art dealers were influencing attribution of unsigned paintings, or perhaps even concocting the attributions themselves. Since they have "always" been motivated to do this (key word there, always), that raises doubts about the accuracy of even very old attributions, suggesting that maybe we should not give them special weight (that is, give them the benefit of the doubt or treat them as especially likely to be true).

Don't fear new info on these question types, my friend, but actively seek it out, starting with your prephrase!