SAT OwlQuestion bank / Command of Evidence
Art historian Paulina Weiss argues that a painting long attributed to the seventeenth-century Dutch artist Pieter van Hoorn was actually painted by one of his students. Her argument rests on the observation that the brushwork in the painting's background is looser and less precise than the brushwork in van Hoorn's other known works.
Which finding, if true, would most directly weaken Weiss's argument?
Van Hoorn had at least six students working in his studio.
Several paintings documented as van Hoorn's own work, made late in his life when his eyesight was failing, show similarly loose brushwork in their backgrounds.
The painting's subject matter is similar to that of other paintings by van Hoorn.
Chemical analysis shows that the painting's pigments were available in the seventeenth century.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: B
Weiss assumes that loose brushwork means van Hoorn did not paint the work. If documented van Hoorn paintings also have loose backgrounds, then that style fits van Hoorn himself, and her evidence no longer points to a student. Choice B undercuts her reasoning.
Choice C may seem to support van Hoorn as the painter, but students often painted their teacher's subjects, so similar subject matter does not answer the brushwork evidence.
Got it wrong? On SAT Owl, Owl looks at the answer you chose and explains the exact mistake, then gives you similar questions until it sticks. Get your predicted SAT score free.