Logical reasoning PrepTest 106 · Section 2 · Question 9

Flawed/Flawed

Argument Structure Questions

C: Red paint on a Veronese painting was applied after the painting was completed and not by Veronese’s workshop, so restoring it to the original green is justified. AC: The red paint was on there shortly after Veronese’s death, and it’s unlikely someone would tamper with it so soon after he died, (so that red paint was probably applied during Veronese’s lifetime and thus may have been done by Veronese.)

This forest question asks us about the Curator’s argument, and since it’s an Argument Structure question, we don’t really have a reason to look at what the Art Critic has to say (but if you’re wondering about our parenthetical, check out the explanation for question 10). With that noted, we know that the Curator is arguing that there’s good reason to restore a cloak in Veronese’s painting from its red to the green found underneath. What’s the justification for it? That reliable tests show the red was applied after the painting was completed, and it was mixed in someone else’s workshop. From this, it concludes that someone other than Veronese applied it, justifying the restoration to the green. The statement in question is that last statement. It starts with a “Hence,” letting us know that it’s some type of conclusion. And, as we stated when walking through the argument, that another artist tampered with the painting is justification for restoring it. So the statement in question here is an intermediate conclusion that supports the main point - let’s find an answer reflecting that.