In the paintings by seventeenth-century

Answer choices

1. A

   Weakens, if anything3% picked this

   Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in

   Since this answer doesn't build a bridge between "expensive props" and "didn't re-use from lack of props", it doesn't really interest us. If we engaged with it, we'd probably think that it does more to weaken than anything else. After all, our author is thinking that Vermeer's use of expensive props indicate that Vermeer was a man of some financial means and thus a man who wouldn't suffer from a lack of props. But if the expensive props are borrowed, not owned by Vermeer, then that actually works against the author's argument.

   3%
2. B

   Mildly Strengthens17% picked this

   The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available

   The author is trying to prove "Vermeer wasn't suffering from a lack of props", i.e. "Vermeer had plenty of props available to him. That's not why he recycled a lot of the same props into lots of paintings." So learning the recurring props were always available to Vermeer somewhat strengthens the picture of a person who had plenty of access to props. But this certainly doesn't prove he had access to other props, as the author's conclusion is trying to do. As far as this answer takes us, it's still very possible that Vermeer only had access to these recurring props. And if he only had access to these props, then he still may have had a dearth (a scarcity) of props available to him. The correct answer can't leave room for, "maybe it was a lack of props". It needs to 100% prove that wasn't the case.

   17%
3. C

   No Impact1% picked this

   The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned

   This would weaken, if anything, in the same style in which (A) did. The author is using Vermeer's apparent possession of expensive props as her sole evidence that he would have had enough money to not suffer from any lack of props. If these props don't belong to him, they're being borrowed, that only hurts the author's argument.

   1%
4. D

   Strengthens14% picked this

   The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental

   This strengthens but doesn't prove. It suggests an Alternate Explanation for why Vermeer recycled these props (it wasn't because he lacked other props; it was because they had such sentimental value). But this answer doesn't use any causal language. It doesn't establish that Vermeer used these sentimental objects as props because they were sentimental. It's possible that Vermeer used these objects because they were the only props he had access to, and they also happen to be objects that had special sentimental important for him. Since this is Sufficient Assumption, not Strengthen, it's not good enough to be suggestive. We need inviolate proof.

   14%
5. E

   Correct66% picked this

   If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive

   Why this is right

   This just gives us the "IF Premise, THEN Conclusion" bridge idea we need to formally prove the conclusion. They present that linking idea in contrapositive form, so that it doesn't initially sound appealing to people, but if we contrapose this answer it says: if we find expensive a dearth of props props in any → did not account for of V's paintings the recurrent objects We do find expensive props in some of V's paintings, so according to this rule, "a dearth (lack, scarcity) of props is not the reason for the recurrent usage of these props". Remember, on Sufficient Assumption, that even if the argument sounds more real world and conversational, our task is not. Our task remains as dry, formulaic, and ultra-logical as ever: pick an answer that, combined with the existing evidence, will allow us to derive the words of the conclusion.

   Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   66%