Art historian: The newly discovered 16th-century painting *The Solitary Scholar* contains lapis lazuli, a blue pigment that was exorbitantly expensive at the time. Only artists backed by wealthy patrons could afford to use lapis lazuli extensively in their works. Given that historical records confirm the artist, Vincenzo, died in poverty and never secured a wealthy patron, *The Solitary Scholar* must have been a collaborative effort with an artist who could afford such materials.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the art historian's argument?
- AAny 16th-century painting that contains lapis lazuli was produced through a collaborative effort.
- BThe lapis lazuli used in *The Solitary Scholar* was of the highest purity available during the 16th century.
- *The Solitary Scholar* does not feature merely a small, affordable quantity of lapis lazuli.Answer
- DMost 16th-century artists who died in poverty relied on wealthy collaborators to complete their paintings.
- EArtists backed by wealthy patrons during the 16th century invariably used lapis lazuli extensively in their works.
Answer
The argument requires assuming that the painting does not feature merely a small, affordable quantity of lapis lazuli.
The argument relies on a subtle shift in language: the painting 'contains' the pigment, but the rule about needing a wealthy patron only applies to using the pigment 'extensively'. For the conclusion (that Vincenzo needed a collaborator to afford it) to hold true, the author must be assuming that the painting uses enough of the pigment to trigger that financial constraint. If it only used a tiny, affordable amount, Vincenzo wouldn't have needed a collaborator.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Identifying a term shift between 'containing' an element and using it 'extensively', and bridging that gap to maintain the argument's logic.