Logical reasoning PrepTest 106 · Section 3 · Question 24

Question prompt

Surviving seventeenth–century Dutch landscapes Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Strengthen Questions

Stimulus Summary

Phenomenon - There are as many 17th c. Dutch landscapes by major artists as by minor ones
Consideration - Minor artists painted a lot of landscapes; major artists painted few
Explanation - Some of these landscapes are misattributed to major artists

Answer Anticipation

This argument falls into a common pattern - a Phenomenon/Explanation argument. The phenomenon is that despite minor Dutch artists painting more landscapes in the 17th century, there are more remaining ones that are attributed to major artists.
The explanation, according to the stimulus? That some of those paintings are misattributed to major artists, when they were really painted by a minor artist.
When an argument puts forward an explanation for a phenomenon, it’s generally the case that the correct answer will eliminate an alternative explanation. Here, that would mean eliminating another way that we could have ended up with more major artist landscapes than minor ones, despite the creation rates. For example, maybe works by minor artists were more likely to be destroyed over the centuries because they were viewed as lacking in value or importance.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Technically gifted seventeenth–century Dutch Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    This answer doesn’t bring up minor or major artists specifically - just technically gifted ones. Since it doesn’t distinguish over the key split in the stimulus, we can rule this answer out.
  2. B
    In the workshops of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    This answer speaks to prep for painting, not the painting itself.
  3. C
    In the eighteenth century, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    This answer provides an alternative explanation - it’s not that the landscapes are misattributed, it’s that the landscapes by the minor artists were thrown out. In providing an alternative explanation, this answer choice weakens the argument.
  4. D
    Seventeenth–century art dealers paid Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    This answer establishes that it was common practice for minor artists to not sign paintings and allow dealers to forge the signatures of major artists. That definitely increases the likelihood that some of the paintings are being misattributed to a major artist whose name was added to a painting by a minor artist! While this answer doesn’t match our anticipation, it does explain how the explanation makes sense, so it’s correct.
  5. E
    More seventeenth–century Dutch landscapes Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    This answer essentially says that some minor and major 17th c. Dutch artists had their landscapes destroyed. That might align with the phenomenon to be explained, but it doesn’t do anything to support any explanation over another.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 9%
  2. B 2%
  3. C 8%
  4. D Credited 75%
  5. E 6%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion