PT137.S4.Q24 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that Nightbird must have been painted by one of Larocque’s students. He supports this by noting that experts agree that the painting is both in Larocque’s style and was either painted by him or by one of his students. He also points out that the painting contains orpiment, a pigment never found in a painting attributed to Larocque.

The author assumes that the orpiment in Nightbird means it wasn’t painted by Larocque, just because none of his known paintings use the pigment. However, Larocque could have used orpiment in a painting not yet attributed to him. Based on this assumption, the author then assumes that the orpiment in Nightbird must mean it was painted by one of his students.

Since few of his students used painting techniques that differed from Larocque’s, and Nightbird “was painted in a style indistinguishable from that of Larocque,” (A) strengthens the conclusion that Nightbird was painted by one of Larocque’s students.

The fact that Larocque never signed any of his paintings does not weaken the conclusion that Nightbird was painted by one of his students. Perhaps his students never signed their paintings either.

The key reason for concluding that Nightbird was painted by a student of Larocque was the orpiment, which paintings attributed to Larocque don’t have. But if none of his students’ paintings contain orpiment either, why should we still conclude that it was painted by one of them?

The importance of Larocque’s students has nothing to do with the conclusion that one of his students painted Nightbird. As far as we know, an unimportant artist could have painted Nightbird just as easily as an important one.

Just because orpiment was more popular after Larocque’s death doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist or that he didn’t use it before his death. It also doesn’t mean that his students, many of whom presumably outlived him, could not also have used orpiment after well after his death.

PrepTest 137 - Section 4 - Question 24

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action