#25 - The Venetian Renaissance painter Vittore Carpaccio used

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[saiffshaikhh@gmail.com]

Please post your questions below!

I narrowed it down to D & E, but I felt D was able to capture the same flaw in the stimulus but how does E not work? Is it the use of probably and the fact that the works are lost?

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Saiffshaikhh!

Let's break down our stimulus:

Premise 1: Venetian Renaissance painted Carpaccio used sumptuous reds in most of his paintings.
Premise 2: Erato Declaiming, a Venetian Renaissance Painting, contains sumptuous reds.
Conclusion: Therefore, Erato Declaiming was probably painted by Carpaccio.

To highlight our conditional reasoning here:

Premises:
Carpaccio --> Sumptuous Reds

Conclusion:
Erato Declaiming has Sumptuous Reds, therefore, it is by Carpaccio (or Sumptuous Reds --> Carpaccio).

Our flaw in the conclusion here is a reversal of our conditions. What is necessary is taken to be sufficient.

Now, let's look at Answer Choice E: "Since late-Renaissance paintings were mostly in oil, the Venetian late-Renaissance painter Arnoldi, whose works are now lost, probably painted in oil."

Late Renaissance --> Oil
Arnoldi was Late Renaissance, therefore, his works were probably painted in oil (or, Late Renaissance --> Oil). Our conditions don't get flipped here the way that they do in the stimulus.

Answer Choice D states: "The anonymous painting St. Sebastian is probably an early Florentine painting since it is in tempera, and most early Florentine paintings were in tempera."

Early Florentine --> Tempera
St. Sebastien is probably Early Florentine, because it is tempera (or, Tempera --> Early Florentine). Here, our conditions get flipped like they are in the stimulus!

I hope this helps!