Q24 - Surviving seventeenth-century Dutch landscapes attribu

[mcrittell]

My gut lead me directly to D, but, as a critical LSATaker, I sized up all the answer choices, including D. I over-critically decided to nix D because we don't know if it's the major artists in whom the dealers are attributing the paintings.

I ultimately selected B because I figured that the paintings attributed to major artists were actually those of their assistants, and thus were "undoubtedly erroneous[ly]" attributed to major artists.

[timmydoeslsat]

B would have been better if it had stated that sometimes the assistants' paintings were passed off as the major's work, or something similar. We also do not even know that the assistants were artists.


E is not a perfect strengthener. You are right. It does not tell us explicitly that it is indeed the major artists that the dealers are attributing the paintings. But it does strengthen the idea that 17th century works were done by minor artists and were passed off as another person's work. That definitely strengthens our conclusion of many attributions of paintings to landscape artists being erroneous.

Answer choices:

A) If you assume that technically gifted = major artists, then this would weaken. If you do not assume that, this choice is neutral.

B) Assistants does not equal artists. No evidence of these guys even painting anything, or passing off works as not their own.

C) Does nothing to our conclusion of erroneous attribution.

D) Correct answer. Gives us a situation where minor artists had an incentive to do such an act.

E) More paintings were actually done than have made it to the present. This is the case for both types, major and minor artists. About that erroneous attribution...?

[maryadkins]

Good discussion!

(E) is actually not a strengthener though, guys. It just tells us that a bunch of the paintings didn't survive, no matter who painted them. We need something, as you both correctly saw, that gives us a reason to believe some of the paintings believed to be painted by major artists are actually by minor ones.

To make (B) work, we'd have to make a series of assumptions ourselves: assistants were minor artists, their preparation counted as "painting." These are some major leaps.

(D) tells us flatly that the major artists' signatures were PHONY! Bingo.

[timmydoeslsat]

My error, I meant to say C is not a perfect strengthener.

[Jdanz653]

I have a question. Could c possibly be a weakening answer choice? Because it provides an alrearnate explanation why there are equal numbers of landscape paintings between major and minor artists ?

[keane.xavier]

Jdanz653,

I couldn't agree more that answer choice (C) weakens the argument. It cannot be dismissed as "out of scope."

Here's what I wrote for answer choice (C) in my write-up:

C. This answer choice offers an alternative explanation for the phenomenon that the number of paintings attributed to major artists is equivalent to the number of paintings attributed to minor artists. Perhaps this phenomenon is due not to the fact that many attributions to major artists were erroneous but rather that paintings by minor artists were often destroyed before they could be properly attributed. By suggesting an alternative explanation for the phenomenon described in the first premise, this answer choice weakens the author's argument.

Conversely, I think that if this answer choice would've ruled out the possibility that paintings by minor artists were destroyed before they could be attributed, it'd strengthen the author's argument by eliminating an alternative explanation for the phenomenon that the number of paintings attributed to major artists is equivalent to the number of paintings attributed to minor artists.

I hope this helps!