Video Explanation

Text Explanation

Premise #1 – Convincing forgeries tend to be painted in the last 25 years.

Premise #2 – A forger uses current aesthetic modes, or paints things in a way that is nice looking based on current standards.

Conclusion: Forgeries are identified as such roughly 25 years later since what is considered aesthetically pleasing shifts.

(A) If we negate (A), we get that a generation does not consist of exactly 25 years. Fine. Let’s say it consists of 26 years or 27 years. The argument still holds. Remember, the prompt only says “roughly every 25 years”.

(B) is tempting, but it doesn’t say anything about computers identifying the majority of forgeries. Computers are simply another option, not the one that has necessarily been the most commonly employed.

(C) is easy to negate since all we have to do is great rid of the “not”. In doing so, we have an answer choice that is consistent with the argument. Indeed, the argument says that what is aesthetically pleasing does change in the course of twenty-five years. Remember: the correct answer, when negated, will result in an answer choice that, if true, will make the conclusion totally fall apart.

(D) is saying that people might value forgeries for their own good. There is no mention about the use of aesthetic standards to identify forgeries.

(E) Negating (E), we get that those who expose the majority of forgeries are NOT guided by aesthetic considerations. The whole conclusion, however, is based on the fact that the majority of forgeries ARE identified via aesthetic considerations. Therefore (E) is correct.