Loading...
Art restorers who have been studying the factors that cause Renaissance oil paintings to deteriorate physically when subject to climatic changes have found that the oil paint used in these paintings actually adjusts to these changes well. The restorers therefore hypothesize that it is a layer of material called gesso, which is under the paint, that causes the deterioration.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the restorers' hypothesis?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Art restorers who have been studying the factors that cause Renaissance oil paintings to deteriorate physically when subject to climatic changes have found that the oil paint used in these paintings actually adjusts to these changes well. |
|
| The restorers therefore hypothesize that it is a layer of material called gesso, which is under the paint, that causes the deterioration. |
|
The argument starts with evidence that rules out one potential cause (oil paint doesn't deteriorate from climate), then uses that elimination to support a different hypothesis (gesso must be the culprit).
The restorers believe that gesso, not oil paint, causes Renaissance paintings to deteriorate when exposed to climate changes.
This uses elimination reasoning - if we know oil paint adjusts well to climate changes, and the paintings still deteriorate, then something else must be causing the problem. The restorers point to gesso as the most likely alternative cause.
Strengthen - We need to find evidence that makes the restorers' hypothesis more believable
The key claim is that gesso (the layer under the paint) causes deterioration when paintings face climatic changes, while oil paint handles these changes well
Since we know oil paint adjusts well to climate changes, we need to find evidence that specifically shows gesso behaves poorly under climatic stress. We should look for information that demonstrates gesso's vulnerability to temperature, humidity, or other climate factors that would cause it to deteriorate and potentially damage the painting
This directly strengthens the hypothesis by showing a clear relationship between gesso and deterioration. If paintings with thinner gesso layers deteriorate less than those with thicker gesso layers when exposed to climate changes, this strongly suggests that gesso is indeed the cause of the problem. The more gesso present, the more deterioration occurs - this is exactly the kind of evidence that supports the restorers' theory that gesso, not oil paint, causes the damage.
While this mentions that wooden panels respond to humidity changes, it doesn't specifically support the hypothesis that gesso causes deterioration. This could actually suggest that the wooden substrate, rather than gesso, might be contributing to the problem. This doesn't strengthen the case for gesso being the culprit.
This actually provides information about oil paint's behavior with climate changes, but we already know from the passage that oil paint adjusts well to these changes. This choice doesn't add new support for the gesso hypothesis - it just reinforces what we already established about oil paint.
This talks about a special type of gesso used for frame moldings, which is completely different from the gesso layer under the paint in the paintings themselves. This information about frame moldings doesn't help us understand whether the gesso under the paint causes deterioration in the actual paintings.
This describes how gesso layers were typically applied by Renaissance painters but doesn't provide any information about how this construction responds to climate changes or whether it causes deterioration. Knowing the application technique doesn't strengthen the hypothesis about gesso causing the deterioration problem.