hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning

Curator: Our museum should acquire the Renfrew portrait. It is true that some experts doubt the painting is genuinely by H薩lst, but those doubts rest entirely on the unusual brushwork in the background. And we have recently learned that Halst's workshop assistants routinely painted the backgrounds of his portraits. So the experts' doubts are unfounded, and we may safely regard the portrait as a genuine Halst.

1. The conclusion follows logically only if Halst's assistants painted backgrounds in a style distinguishable from his own.
2. The argument removes the sole stated basis for doubting the attribution, but treats removing that basis as establishing the attribution's correctness.
3. The argument assumes without warrant that any painting whose background was painted by an assistant should still be attributed to the workshop's master.
4. The argument takes the fact that some experts doubt the attribution as positive evidence that the attribution is mistaken.
5. The argument generalizes from the practices of Halst's workshop to the practices of portrait workshops in that era as a whole.

Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →