PrepTest 102

Incorrect. The argument relies on the Curator being able to distinguish between the two, not art speculators. While the speculators being able to tell the difference may affect the amount paid for the works, it doesn't address whether the works are inferior or whether the museum would select those works to sell.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Goal - Refurbish galleries
Approach - Sell off some works
Curator - The gallery has some inferior works by Renoir and Cezanne
Conclusion - Some works can be sold without hurting the collection's quality

Answer Anticipation:
As with all Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions, we should start by identifying the flaw in the argument so that we can find an answer that addresses it.

Here, there are a few elements we should focus on.

First, the argument relies on the opinion of the Curator. While a museum's Curator can definitely have valid opinions on the quality of works, in an area that involves a lot of subjectivity, there's reason to not take that opinion at face value. The argument assumes that the Curator's assessment of these works is accurate.

And, on a similar note, the Curator's argument is self-contained—they're inferior works "and so" add nothing to the collection. That's a pretty extreme conclusion. Maybe the works are inferior, but they show the growth of the artists in question, and as such do add to the collection's quality. This assumption that an inferior work cannot add to quality is a second flaw in the argument.

And, finally, the last one requires us to know a little bit about some grammar patterns on the exam. When an argument raises examples as premises—here, the lesser works of Renoir and Cezanne in the collection—it's important that the conclusion tie into them. Here, the conclusion is about selling "some works" from the collection (the Board's recommendation), not these works that were just referenced. If the Board decides to sell better works so as to raise more funds, then that could detract from the collection's quality. This is a third assumption.

So we have a lot of potential answers! As such, let's head to the answer choices ASAP to give us plenty of time to address them.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the third assumption we spotted—the shift between the specific paintings that the Curator mentioned and the ones that the Board would move to sell. If the Board sells some paintings that aren't inferior works, then that method of raising funds could result in the quality of the collection going down, killing the argument. Therefore, this answer is a necessary premise.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument brings up specific examples in driving to a conclusion, make sure that, if the conclusion is specific, it references those examples. Here, the difference between selling "these" paintings and selling "some" paintings was a leap that invalidated the conclusion.

Incorrect. The source of the paintings isn't important to whether they are inferior and whether they'll be selected to be sold, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Who would buy and what they would pay is out of scope—what matters is whether the paintings add to the quality of the collection and which are selected to be sold.

Incorrect. Appreciation is out of scope—something of inferior quality can be appreciated; something of superior quality could not be. As such, this answer is out of scope.