Q24 - Until recently, experts have been unable to identify

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The artist who painted the self-portrait also painted the battle scene.
Evidence: There's a self-portrait dated the same year of the battle scene painting. One of the people in the battle scene looks a lot like the artist in the self-portrait.

Answer Anticipation:
Our author is speculating as to the answer to a CURIOUS FACT ("Who painted this battle scene? Why is there a dude in this painting that looks a lot like this well-known artist?"). Her EXPLANATION is "the well-known painter is the person who painted the battle scene (putting themself into the painting)". Like we always do, we ask two questions:
#1. How ELSE could we explain the curious fact?
#2. How plausible is the author's storyline?

#1. We don't really have any other leads to go off of, but we could certainly just hold out belief that someone ELSE painted the battle scene, and the dude in the painting that looks like the well-known artist could just be coincidental. Or maybe, someone who knew that painter just decided for some reason to put him in the battle scene as one of the characters.

#2. How could we undermine the plausibility that the self-portrait artist also painted the battle scene and put himself in it? We could say he lacked some of the painting technique involved in the battle scene. He would be too modest to put himself in the painting. He wasn't an aristocrat, so posing as one in the painting would be cheeky. The only time he ever painted himself was a self-portrait. etc.

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This doesn't move the needle in either direction. If anything, it might corroborate the plausibility of the author's explanation.

(B) The painter in question was not famous yet (it was early in his career when this battle scene was painted), so we wouldn't count him as a famous historical person. He is still a real person from history. To the extent that the painting included lots of real people, that could strengthen the author's story. To the extent that it sounds like the real people were "famous" historical figures, that could weaken the author's story. Either way, it's only MOST of the figures in the painting. So there's going to be room to still allow for the self-portrait painter to be an exception to the trend.

(C) This hints at an alternate storyline: maybe this famous painter IS the guy in the battle scene, but HE didn't paint it. Someone else did. He was just posing as a live model. I might keep this on a first pass, but it's super weak. "It was not uncommon" is very weak phrasing. We have no strong reason to think that THIS painting used live models.

(D) YES, this makes the author's story sound very implausible. It doesn't sound very likely that the young artist included himself in this battle of aristocrats, if that would have been a breach of etiquette.

(E) This doesn't do much to lower plausibility. A historic battle several years before the painter was born would still likely be something that lived in the collective unconscious. The painter could plausibly be familiar with this recent/historic battle and choose to paint a painting about it.

Takeaway/Pattern: The correct answer is by no means bulletproof. No correct answer on Strengthen / Weaken is. But if we knew we had to pick an answer that offered a different storyline for who painted the battle scene, or an answer that undercut the author's storyline, we'd find (C) very weakly hinting at the former and (D) very strongly performing the latter.

#officialexplanation

[BenH787]

Can Patrick (or anyone else) tell me where I'm misguided in my reasoning?

My thought process during the test was basically as follows (as I was left to choose between C/D)

C: 'It was not uncommon'..." : this is an established fact that we can be sure happened at least once, making it likelier that the little boy or whatever is not the painter since at least on one occasion people were known to paint using models

D: 'It would have been a violation of etiquette'..." : although i agree that this does seem to strengthen, aren't we making extra assumptions to get there? So what if it was a violation of etiquette? People do things all the time that violate etiquette, like belching at the dinner table or interrupting a speaker. I just am not sure why something being a violation of etiquette is logically connected to NOT doing something unless you're assuming that violating etiquette by doing X = not doing X at all

To me it just seemed that with C we could establish that it happened on one or more instances, whereas with D, although it does seem to have the potential to strengthen more, it doesn't prove anything in itself unless we make assumptions, and to me it seems like only after we assume that violating etiquette leads to not doing something can we use D to strengthen

I'm sure i made a careless mistake in reasoning, so sorry in advance

[Laura Damone]

You're correct that C gives us an established fact: Sometimes models were used. But what does that have to do with this painting, or the story line we're given? It doesn't give us any reason to believe that this particular painting used models. And even if it did, so what? That doesn't prevent the painter from painting himself in there, too. Since using models in a painting and painting yourself in there aren't mutually exclusive options, I'd argue this makes it no less likely that the painter is pictured in the painting.

D, on the other hand, gives us at least some reason to believe that the painter in question may not have painted himself among the aristocrats pictured. Certainly it doesn't destroy the argument, because as you said, people violate etiquette rules all the time. And you're also right that you must assume that the rules of etiquette matter. But you don't need to go so far as to assume that no one would ever break a rule of etiquette, because we just need to weaken the argument, not disprove its conclusion. As long as we can disrupt the connection between the evidence (one of the figures looks like this artist) and the conclusion (the painting was probably painted by that artist), we've done our job.

[WilliamS670]

Why is it thinner to assume the artist wouldn't depict himself in a battle in which he didn't participate than it is to assume the artist wouldn't violate conventions of etiquette? At times, the LR section goes a little bit off the rails in the 80's, if you ask me.