A museum has been offered an undocumented statue, supposedly Greek and from sixth century B.C. Possibly the statue is genuine...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

EASY

...

Notes

Post a Query

A museum has been offered an undocumented statue, supposedly Greek and from sixth century B.C. Possibly the statue is genuine but undocumented because it was recently unearthed or because it has been privately owned. However, an ancient surface usually has uneven weathering, whereas the surface of this statue has the uniform quality characteristically produced by a chemical bath used by forgers to imitate a weathered surface. Therefore, the statue is probably a forgery.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Museums can accept a recently unearthed statue only with valid export documentation from its country of origin.

The subject's pose and other aspects of the subject's treatment exhibit all the most common features of Greek statues of the sixth century B.C.

The chemical bath that forgers use was at one time used by dealers and collectors to remove the splotchy surface appearance of genuinely ancient sculptures.

Museum officials believe that forgers have no technique that can convincingly simulate the patchy weathering characteristic of the surfaces of ancient sculptures.

An allegedly Roman sculpture with a uniform surface similar to that of the statue being offered to the museum was recently shown to be a forgery.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
A museum has been offered an undocumented statue, supposedly Greek and from sixth century B.C.	What it says: Museum got offered an ancient Greek statue, but there's no paperwork proving it's real What it does: Sets up the situation and introduces the mystery we need to solve What it is: Author's scene-setting
Possibly the statue is genuine but undocumented because it was recently unearthed or because it has been privately owned.	What it says: There are innocent reasons why a real statue might not have documentation What it does: Acknowledges that lack of documentation doesn't automatically mean it's fake What it is: Author's acknowledgment of alternative explanations
However, an ancient surface usually has uneven weathering, whereas the surface of this statue has the uniform quality characteristically produced by a chemical bath used by forgers to imitate a weathered surface.	What it says: Real old statues weather unevenly, but this statue has uniform weathering like fake ones What it does: Introduces the key physical evidence that contradicts the statue being genuine What it is: Author's expert observation Visualization: Real statue surface: patches of heavy wear + patches of light wear = uneven This statue surface: same level of wear everywhere = uniform (like chemical treatment)
Therefore, the statue is probably a forgery.	What it says: Based on the weathering evidence, the statue is most likely fake What it does: Draws the final conclusion from the weathering pattern evidence What it is: Author's conclusion

Argument Flow:

The author starts by acknowledging there could be innocent explanations for why a genuine statue lacks documentation. But then they present physical evidence - the weathering pattern - that strongly suggests forgery. This evidence becomes the foundation for concluding the statue is probably fake.

Main Conclusion:

The statue is probably a forgery

Logical Structure:

The argument uses elimination reasoning: even though lack of documentation alone doesn't prove forgery, the uniform weathering pattern (which is characteristic of chemical treatment used by forgers) provides strong physical evidence against authenticity. The uniform surface contradicts what we'd expect from genuine ancient weathering, making forgery the most likely explanation.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Weaken - We need to find information that would make us less confident that the statue is a forgery

Precision of Claims

The argument makes a specific claim about weathering patterns: genuine ancient statues have uneven weathering, while this statue has uniform weathering like chemically treated forgeries

Strategy

To weaken this argument, we need to find scenarios that either: (1) provide alternative explanations for why a genuine statue could have uniform weathering, (2) show that the weathering evidence isn't as conclusive as claimed, or (3) introduce other factors that could explain the uniform surface without it being a forgery. We must accept the facts given - that ancient surfaces usually weather unevenly and this statue has uniform weathering.

Answer Choices Explained

Museums can accept a recently unearthed statue only with valid export documentation from its country of origin.

This tells us about museum policies for accepting recently unearthed statues, but it doesn't address the core issue of whether the weathering pattern indicates forgery. The argument's reasoning is based on physical evidence (uniform vs. uneven weathering), not documentation requirements. This choice is irrelevant to weakening the weathering-based conclusion.

The subject's pose and other aspects of the subject's treatment exhibit all the most common features of Greek statues of the sixth century B.C.

Information about the statue having correct stylistic features for 6th century Greek art doesn't weaken the weathering argument. Even if the pose and treatment are historically accurate, forgers could still replicate these features while using chemical baths that create uniform surfaces. The physical evidence about weathering patterns remains the key issue.

The chemical bath that forgers use was at one time used by dealers and collectors to remove the splotchy surface appearance of genuinely ancient sculptures.

This significantly weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the uniform weathering. If dealers and collectors historically used the same chemical baths on genuine ancient sculptures to remove splotchy appearances, then uniform weathering could indicate either a forgery OR a genuine piece that was treated by past owners. This creates reasonable doubt about the conclusion.

Museum officials believe that forgers have no technique that can convincingly simulate the patchy weathering characteristic of the surfaces of ancient sculptures.

This actually strengthens rather than weakens the argument. If museum officials believe forgers cannot convincingly simulate patchy weathering, this supports the reasoning that uniform weathering (which forgers can create) versus uneven weathering (which they cannot replicate) is a reliable indicator of forgery.

An allegedly Roman sculpture with a uniform surface similar to that of the statue being offered to the museum was recently shown to be a forgery.

This strengthens the argument by providing supporting evidence that uniform surfaces are indeed associated with forgeries. If another sculpture with similar uniform weathering was proven to be fake, this reinforces the pattern that uniform weathering indicates forgery rather than authenticity.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...