Text 1A recently discovered painting found in a French estate shows characteristics typical of 17th-century Baroque style, including dramatic lighting...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
A recently discovered painting found in a French estate shows characteristics typical of 17th-century Baroque style, including dramatic lighting contrasts and religious subject matter. Because these features are consistent with the work of Georges de La Tour, art historians initially attributed the painting to this renowned French Baroque master.
Text 2
Art experts were intrigued when technical analysis revealed unusual pigment compositions in the newly discovered painting. Advanced spectroscopic studies showed that the pigments used were not available until the 19th century, indicating the work was likely created by a skilled 19th-century artist imitating La Tour's distinctive style, rather than by La Tour himself.
Based on the texts, what would the art experts in Text 2 most likely say about the art historians' initial attribution in Text 1?
It is confusing because the technical analysis doesn't clearly show why the historians thought the painting was by La Tour.
It is reasonable because the painting does exhibit La Tour's characteristic style, even though it was probably created by a later imitator.
It is incorrect because the historians wrongly assumed the painting must be a 19th-century imitation.
It is logical because the painting's Baroque features are similar to other disputed works but executed differently.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| A recently discovered painting found in a French estate shows characteristics typical of 17th-century Baroque style, including dramatic lighting contrasts and religious subject matter. |
|
| Because these features are consistent with the work of Georges de La Tour, art historians initially attributed the painting to this renowned French Baroque master. |
|
| Art experts were intrigued when technical analysis revealed unusual pigment compositions in the newly discovered painting. |
|
| Advanced spectroscopic studies showed that the pigments used were not available until the 19th century, indicating the work was likely created by a skilled 19th-century artist imitating La Tour's distinctive style, rather than by La Tour himself. |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Technical analysis revealed that a painting initially attributed to 17th-century master Georges de La Tour was actually created by a skilled 19th-century imitator using historically anachronistic materials.
Argument Flow: The passage presents a classic case of art authentication revision. It starts with a logical initial attribution based on stylistic analysis, then introduces technical evidence that contradicts the timeline, leading to a new conclusion that preserves the stylistic observation while updating the chronology and authorship.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked: We need to determine what the art experts from Text 2 (who did the technical analysis) would most likely say about the art historians' initial attribution from Text 1.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The art experts discovered that the pigments date to the 19th century, proving it's not actually by La Tour
- However, they would likely acknowledge that the historians' initial reasoning made sense - the painting really does show La Tour's characteristic Baroque style with dramatic lighting and religious themes
- The experts wouldn't say the historians were completely wrong in their analysis of the style - they'd recognize that the painting genuinely exhibits those features
It is confusing because the technical analysis doesn't clearly show why the historians thought the painting was by La Tour.
- Claims the technical analysis doesn't clearly show why historians thought it was La Tour
- This misunderstands the situation - the technical analysis actually confirms the painting does exhibit La Tour's style
It is reasonable because the painting does exhibit La Tour's characteristic style, even though it was probably created by a later imitator.
- Acknowledges the painting does exhibit La Tour's characteristic style and recognizes it was probably created by a later imitator
- This matches how the technical experts would view the situation
It is incorrect because the historians wrongly assumed the painting must be a 19th-century imitation.
- Claims historians wrongly assumed the painting must be a 19th-century imitation
- This reverses what actually happened - historians thought it was 17th-century La Tour, not a 19th-century imitation
It is logical because the painting's Baroque features are similar to other disputed works but executed differently.
- Mentions other disputed works which aren't discussed in either text and goes beyond what the texts actually provide