When storing Renaissance oil paintings, museums conform to standards that call for careful control of the surrounding temperature and humidity,...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
When storing Renaissance oil paintings, museums conform to standards that call for careful control of the surrounding temperature and humidity, with variations confined within narrow margins. Maintaining this environment is very costly, and recent research shows that even old oil paint is unaffected by wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity. Therefore, museums could relax their standards and save money without endangering their Renaissance oil paintings.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| When storing Renaissance oil paintings, museums conform to standards that call for careful control of the surrounding temperature and humidity, with variations confined within narrow margins. |
|
| Maintaining this environment is very costly, and recent research shows that even old oil paint is unaffected by wide fluctuations in temperature and humidity. |
|
| Therefore, museums could relax their standards and save money without endangering their Renaissance oil paintings. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by explaining what museums currently do (expensive strict environmental controls), then introduces research that questions whether this is necessary (old paint handles fluctuations fine), and concludes that museums can change their approach to save money without risk.
Main Conclusion:
Museums can relax their environmental standards and save money without putting their Renaissance oil paintings at risk.
Logical Structure:
The argument uses the research finding (old paint is unaffected by fluctuations) as evidence to support changing current expensive practices. It assumes the research applies to museum storage situations and that no other factors matter for painting preservation.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Assumption - We need to find what the author must believe to be true for the conclusion to work. This means finding statements that, if false, would make the conclusion fall apart.
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific claims about Renaissance oil paintings, old oil paint's resistance to environmental changes, and the ability to relax current museum standards without endangering the artworks.
Strategy
For assumption questions, we identify ways the conclusion could be falsified while respecting the given facts. The conclusion is that museums can relax standards and save money without endangering Renaissance paintings. We need to find what must be true for this leap from 'old oil paint is unaffected' to 'Renaissance paintings will be safe' to work.
This choice suggests that Renaissance paintings were originally created in conditions with greater fluctuations than current museum standards allow. While this might support the idea that the paintings can handle fluctuations, it's not something the argument must assume. The research about old oil paint's resilience provides sufficient evidence regardless of original creation conditions. The argument doesn't depend on historical creation conditions.
This claims that under current standards, Renaissance paintings don't deteriorate at all. The argument doesn't need to assume this extreme position. The author's point is about cost-effectiveness of relaxed standards, not that current standards achieve perfect preservation. Museums could still relax standards even if some minimal deterioration occurs under current conditions.
This addresses whether museum collections contain other items more vulnerable than Renaissance paintings. However, the argument is specifically about Renaissance paintings and their storage standards. The author doesn't need to assume anything about other collection items since the conclusion only concerns relaxing standards for Renaissance paintings specifically.
This directly addresses the gap in the argument. The research shows that 'old oil paint' is unaffected by fluctuations, but Renaissance paintings contain more than just paint - they have canvas, wood panels, varnishes, binding agents, and other materials. For the conclusion that 'museums can relax standards without endangering Renaissance oil paintings' to be valid, we must assume these other components can also handle the fluctuations. If any of these other materials were vulnerable enough to cause damage, then relaxing standards would still endanger the paintings even though the paint itself is fine.
This discusses the geographic relationship between where paintings are stored versus where they were created. The argument about environmental fluctuations and storage costs doesn't depend on the location of museums relative to where the paintings originated. This geographic factor isn't relevant to whether paintings can handle environmental fluctuations.