Question

because they penetrate the visible surface of a painting, ultraviolet and other nonvisible spectra of light enable the detection of otherwise imperceptible features of the work. beneath the surface of claude monets wisteria (1917 - 20), art historians found that monet had initially included water lilies but ultimately painted over them. furthermore, nonvisible spectra can be used for chemical analysis to identify specific pigments and thus, in some cases, reveal forgeries: if, for example, titanium oxide—which wasnt developed until the 20th century—is evident throughout the layers of a painting attributed to an 18th - century artist, that work can only be a forgery. what does the text most strongly suggest about how analyzing a painting with nonvisible light can inform a judgment about who that painting is attributed to? a. it can provide new information about the attributed artists practices. b. it can definitively undermine that attribution. c. it can confirm that attribution with a high degree of confidence. d. it can show how the work is similar to others attributed to the same artist.

Explanation:

The text gives an example where non - visible spectra (ultraviolet and other non - visible light) can reveal a forgery. If a pigment (titanium oxide) that was developed in the 20th century is found in a painting attributed to an 18th - century artist, the painting is a forgery. This means that analyzing with non - visible light can definitively show that the attribution (to the 18th - century artist) is wrong.

• Option A: The example is not about the attributed artist's practices but about disproving the attribution.
• Option C: The example is about disproving an attribution, not confirming it.
• Option D: The text does not discuss similarities to other works of the attributed artist.

Answer:

B. It can definitively undermine that attribution.