CR Question

[starman]

A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509. It cannot have been painted earlier than 1507 because one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until that year. It cannot have been painted after 1509 because it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in that year.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
- No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.
- Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.
- The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507.
- The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age.
- Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509.

I find A and B to be equally strong assumptions. The explaination mentioned below wasnt convincing. Its required to make sure that Michelanglo has no stocks of the abandoned pigment after 1509. Otherwise he would have the used old stock to finish the painting in a year after 1509.

Does this mean B is the stronger choice? Did i completely miss something or is there a better way to pick the right answer?
Choice A is incorrect. We do not need to assume that no stocks of the pigment existed after 1509. The argument is concerned only with the year in which Michelangelo stopped using the pigment.

Choice B is correct. In order to conclude that the painting must have been completed before 1509 on the basis of the pigment, we must assume that he did not begin the painting before 1509 using the old pigment and complete the painting after 1509 with the new pigment.

[nag]

You can apply option B to option A- Started making painting before 1507 but drew coin after 1507. This makes B a stronger choice

[nag]

OOPS. Just ignore the coin part. Option B is applicable to option A

[StaceyKoprince]

Note: option A says that no stock existed after 1509 period - anywhere, not just in Michelangelo's possession. Is it possible that the pigment still existed in the world but Michelangelo didn't use it for the stated reason? Sure - that wouldn't affect this author's claim that the painting was painted between 1507 and 1509.

For option B, however, try this: Michelangelo started painting the canvas in 1505, but put it aside for a while and then finished it in 1507, at which time he painted in the new coin. Or, Michelangelo started painting with the old pigment in 1508 and finished that particular color then. He finished the rest in 1510 but didn't need to use the particular pigment in question again - maybe it was blue and he was done with all of the blues in 1508 but added some yellow in 1510. If either of those scenarios is true, there goes the author's claim.

[StaceyKoprince]

p.s. please remember to follow protocol. The subject of your post should be the first 5-8 words of the question itself. Thanks!

[vinnieregina]

Hello,

I'm not sure what the protocol is for asking a question about a problem that has already been covered, so I will just tag along on this thread.

I really struggled with this question, because I eliminated option B based on the idea that it is possible that Michelangelo started the painting in 1507 and finished in 1509. The evidence in the passage doesn't refute that assumption. It says "it could not have been painted before 1507, or after 1509."

One thing I did notice is that the first sentence in the passage makes the statement that the painting had to be completed after 1507 and before 1509. Then the evidence in the passage doesn't back that up. Why would the painting have to be completed after 1507 if the coin was introduced in 1507? If he finished the painting in one year like answer B says, than it is certainly possible he started and finished in 1507.

I thought maybe that had something to do with the discrepancy above, however the answer explanation does not mention it at all.

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Hello,

I'm not sure what the protocol is for asking a question about a problem that has already been covered, so I will just tag along on this thread.

I really struggled with this question, because I eliminated option B based on the idea that it is possible that Michelangelo started the painting in 1507 and finished in 1509. The evidence in the passage doesn't refute that assumption. It says "it could not have been painted before 1507, or after 1509."

One thing I did notice is that the first sentence in the passage makes the statement that the painting had to be completed after 1507 and before 1509. Then the evidence in the passage doesn't back that up. Why would the painting have to be completed after 1507 if the coin was introduced in 1507? If he finished the painting in one year like answer B says, than it is certainly possible he started and finished in 1507.

I thought maybe that had something to do with the discrepancy above, however the answer explanation does not mention it at all.

Thanks

it appears that you misunderstand the basic nature of "find the assumption" questions.

in these questions, your job is to find an assumption that is NECESSARY IN ORDER TO DRAW THE STATED CONCLUSION.
in other words:
the conclusion is there. YOU ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH WHETHER OTHER CONCLUSIONS MIGHT ALSO BE DRAWN. you are only trying to pick something that MUST be true IF your conclusion is to be considered valid.

what you're arguing here is, basically, "if i start with that assumption, then i might conclude X instead of the conclusion that's listed here."
this is irrelevant to Find the Assumption questions. (it's definitely not irrelevant to Draw the Conclusion questions - but this is not one of those.)

[reply2spg]

what should be the ideal number of years to say several years. Can 2 years become several years?

[tkulkarn]

what should be the ideal number of years to say several years. Can 2 years become several years?

I faced the same problem. colloquial english is that a couple means 2 and several means anything more than 2. But does this apply to gmat as well?
The original question is a good one; but I chose that the coin drawn was available to public in 1507. The fact that the pigment is not available starting 1509 rules out anybody attacking the author about his claim that the painting could have been made after 1509.
The question states that the painting was done between 1507 and 1509 (which itself covers a 3 year period), in other words, several years. Isn't that?
The other attack that the author will face is that the painting was started well before 1507. But then how come the coin from 1507 is in that? So, that choice defends the author's claim.

[RonPurewal]

what should be the ideal number of years to say several years. Can 2 years become several years?

I faced the same problem. colloquial english is that a couple means 2 and several means anything more than 2. But does this apply to gmat as well?
The original question is a good one; but I chose that the coin drawn was available to public in 1507. The fact that the pigment is not available starting 1509 rules out anybody attacking the author about his claim that the painting could have been made after 1509.
The question states that the painting was done between 1507 and 1509 (which itself covers a 3 year period), in other words, several years. Isn't that?
The other attack that the author will face is that the painting was started well before 1507. But then how come the coin from 1507 is in that? So, that choice defends the author's claim.

two things.

1, what choice did you think was better than this one?
if you found genuine, non-pedantic reasons why the other four reasons are wrong, but you're relying on minutiae such as "hmmm, maybe several can mean 2" to knock out this one, then you know which one is the correct answer.

2, rest easy. the gmat will NEVER write a problem (even on the quant section!) that will require you to notice silly little nitpicking nuances of definitions.

[sagarjbalan]

Interesting to see that this problem existed in 2009 and people faced issues.

I find it difficult to digest that B is the reason and dont find the explanations here convincing either.

Here is my logic:

Argument : Painting was completed after 1507 and completed before 1509.

Key support pillars for the argument :
a. After 1507 : Because, coin was minted in 1507
b. Not after 1509 (On or before 1509) : Because, he abandoned the pigment used in the painting in 1509.

My understanding of 'finding the assumption' questions : Find statements which will strengthen the key support pillars.

Choice A. No pigment existed after 1509. Re-iterates with evidence. Supports the argument. Strenghten the assumption. Correct.

Choice B. Several years. Well, he could have started it in 1506, biding his time till 1507 and then used pigment in 1508, used a new pigment in 1509. I dont see how this can be the correct answer.

I know this discussion has taken place multiple times, but request you to help me understand and build a framework to analyse.

[tim]

find the assumption questions are COMPLETELY different from strengthen questions. you have ignored the question itself, made up an alternate universe where the question is now a strengthen question, and proceeded to choose an answer on that basis. and you know what, in that alternate universe i would agree that A is a good answer. unfortunately the GMAT won't give you many points for answering a different question from the one they ask..

BTW your logic in analyzing choice B is backwards. not just wrong, a 180 degree reversal of how you should be analyzing the choice. you'll probably want to reread the sections in our CR book about assumption questions and strengthen questions, as that will give you some really solid guidance as to how you should approach these problems..

[sagarjbalan]

Hmm. Thanks but not sure if that helped :)

[tim]

sorry dude, i wish i could help more. i pointed out what you were doing wrong and gave suggestions for how to improve. please let me know if there's anything else i can do to help you with this..

[ssajjan03]

Tim, Please tell me where is the fallacy in the reasoning below:

The conclusion of the argument is that Michelangelo must have completed the painting between 1507 and 1509.
why did he do so : Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in that year.

Q find assumption:
Hence, if Michelangelo is not left with earlier stock of pigment after 2009, he will not use it otherwise he will use it (note the reason of abandonment i.e. cheaper option)

hence A
Choice B: over the course of several years can not just focus on 2009 and leave 2007 , just because it is an answer.
official explanation:
"In order to conclude that the painting must have been completed before 1509 on the basis of the pigment, we must assume that he did not begin the painting before 1509 using the old pigment and complete the painting after 1509 with the new pigment. "

this explanation seems to be derived from answer rather than the question itself..

appreciate if you can clarify