#12 - Must Be True

[Nina]

I don't quite get why answer E is correct. Since the passage didn't really define what kind of work counts as a "forgery", we only know that a forgery lacks the quality of innovation. Does that mean, a work can be a forgery as long as it lacks innovation, even if it didn't mean to imitate any particular original work?

Thanks a lot!

[Steve Stein]

Hey Nina,

That's a tough one, despite the fact that it references the main focus of the passage:
The Disciples at Emmaus is the forgery discussed throughout the passage, and although the painter forged the name and style of a Dutch master, the forgery was not a copy of any particular work.

I hope that's helpful!

~Steve

[Nina]

oh, yeah, that makes sense. Thank you very much, Steve!

[hrhyoo]

Could you please explain why A is incorrect? I picked A since even a highly reputed critic could not correctly identify a forged work, there must be considerable debates when trying to ID forgeries.

Thanks in advance.


H

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Hanna! There is just not enough direct support in the passage for Answer Choice (A). It certainly is possible that the critic disagreed because of a debate about forgery identification criteria, but we don't know that from the passage. It is just as possible that there is no debate about the criteria used to identify forgeries, but rather that particular critic was just an obstinate contrarian! As I'm sure you've experienced, some people just won't change their minds about certain things, even if all the evidence is against them! For these Must be True questions, we want to be able to point to something concrete in the passage that provides direct support for our answer choice. The support just isn't there for (A); the connection you drew requires some imagination and guesswork. On the other hand, we know for sure that Answer Choice (E) is true since as Steven mentioned above, the passage makes it clear that the forgery discussed by this passage is not a copy of any particular work. Hope that helps!

[hrhyoo]

Hi Paul,

I didn't realize until later on that the painting wasn't a replica - I assumed that Emmaus was a replica. I'll try not to be imaginative and simply stick to the passage given. Having said that, I am still working on reading faster and referring back to the passage more often than I normally do. Why is it so hard...

Thanks again for your help!

Cheers,


Hanna

[nyc431]

Do we know that Emmaus is not a replica only because the passage does not state that it is a replica (in the first paragraph)? Or are there other clues throughout the passage?

[Adam Tyson]

That inference is based on a number of clues throughout the passage, nyc431, rather than any explicit statement one way or another. For example, the author refers to the painting as "Han van Meegeren’s The Disciples at Emmaus" rather than as van Meegeren's copy of a Vermeer painting by that name. Also the reference to that painting being "painted under the forged signature" of Vermeer, rather than saying the painting as a whole was a forgery. It's this series of implications, along with there being no mention of the painting being a copy, that allows us to make this inference. The passage thus strongly supports the inference that the painting was an original by van Meegeren that he was passing off as a Vermeer, rather than a copy of an actual Vermeer painting.