Critical Reasoning

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?
a. No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.
b. Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.
c. The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507.
d. The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age.
e. Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509.



Oa after some discussions

IMO A

IMO B

What if the painting has been done over a span of several years. Lets say, the painting began in 1508 and the painter used pigment. From 1509 the painter stopped using the pigment. Now years later when someone analyses the painting he/she will still find pigment used, may not be in entire painting but some parts.

OA plz?[/spoiler]

IMO B

cans wrote:IMO A

A is only a part assumption. Also, the author states that the Michelangelo abandoned the paint in 1509. So if we negate A and state that stocks of the pigment existed after 1509, the author could still point out that Michelangelo abandoned it for a cheaper paint.

On the other hand option (b) refutes the argument through and through. When we negate it, the argument falls apart completely and the author can't argue against it.

Am sure you would have spotted that mistake on a normal day but sometimes we tend to stick to the first good looking option and don't consider the rest of the options in their entirety

IMO B

@cans : made the same mistake ..
Fell for the tricky one A