Self-study
Support It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two or three hundred years ago, especially one without a signature or with a questionably authentic signature, is indubitably the work of this or that particular artist. ████ ████ █████ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ██ █ ████████ ████████ ███████ ███████ █████ ████ ███████████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████ █████████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████ ███ █ █████████████ ████ █████████ ████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ ██ ██ ███ ███ ████████████ █████ ███ █ ████████ ██████████████
Argument Summary
The author points out that the traditional attribution of a disputed painting carries "special weight" because it is very hard to prove that a two- or three-hundred-year-old painting is undeniably the work of a given artist. The author draws a general conclusion from this point: an art historian arguing for a deattribution of a specific painting will have to persuasively provide an alternative attribution in order to convince other art historians.
Analysis: Strengthen
This is a bit of an unconventional Strengthen question, because we're not being asked to strengthen any of the claims in the stimulus. Rather, we're being asked to strengthen the idea that a disputed painting's traditional attribution should not have special weight. In other words, we actually want to weaken or undermine the second premise of the argument in the stimulus, that the traditional attribution of a disputed painting has special weight because it "carries the presumption of historical continuity."
To undermine this idea, we can undermine the support given for it. For instance, we could argue that the "presumption of historical continuity" is not that important or valuable. Or we could provide some external reason to doubt the validity of a traditional attribution — for instance, if most traditional attributions come from long after the paintings were actually made.
21.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ██ █ ████████ ████████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████ ███████
a
Art dealers have ██████ ████ ███ ██ ████████ █████████████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ████████
Correct. (A) gives us a reason to think that traditional attributions should not have special weight. The stimulus argued that such attributions should have special weight because they carry the presumption of "historical continuity." But historical continuity doesn't necessarily mean anything if art dealers have always attributed unsigned but meritorious paintings to famous artists.
In other words, we already know the "traditional attribution" is traditional — i.e., it goes back a long time. We want to know if there's any reason to give the traditional attribution special weight as true, and (A) suggests a reason not to.
b
When a painting ██ ██████████ ████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ████████████ ███ ███ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ██████ █████ ██ ████ █████
Incorrect. (B) doesn't tell us anything either way about whether the "traditional attribution" is accurate. We're not told that these eyewitnesses are the sources for the traditional attribution; all (B) says is that the question of "correct attribution" isn't relevant when a painting is created. But that doesn't help us figure out anything about whether the traditional attribution for a painting is reliable.
c
There are not ██████ ███████ ███████████ ███████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ███████
Incorrect. Notice all the qualifying language in (C): there are "not always" clear differences between "the occasional inferior" work of a master painter and the "very best" work of a lesser talent. This seems to be talking about fairly rare cases, and incidentally doesn't tell us anything about how the similarities in these cases affect the traditional attribution. So (C) doesn't give us any reason to doubt the claim in the stimulus that the traditional attribution should have special weight because it "carries the presumption of historical continuity."
d
Attribution can shape ██████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ████ █████ █████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ █ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ █ █████ ███████
Incorrect. Notice that (D) describes an effect of attribution: once a painting is already attributed to someone, whether a major artist or a minor artist, how does that attribution shape the perception of that painting? This is a separate question from whether the attribution itself is accurate or not, which is what we're interested in. We want to know if the traditional attribution for a painting should be given special weight.
If you picked (D), maybe you thought that since attribution shapes perception in this way, people will be more inclined to attribute paintings to great artists than to lesser ones, regardless of who actually painted them — thus, because of this bias, we should be skeptical of traditional attributions. But, again, notice that (D) doesn't imply anything about whether people will tend to make attributions to major or minor artists more often, or anything about the truth or falsehood of an attribution, which is what we're interested in.
e
Even though some ███████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ ██████ █████ ████ ██ █████████ █████ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████
Incorrect. We want an answer choice that tells us that the traditional attribution of a painting should not be given special weight. (E) doesn't tell us that: it just tells us that a particular subset of paintings are already "properly attributed" to the masters who did the main work on them.