Statement & Argument — Are fabulous prices for original paintings of old masters justified? Arguments: I. Yes, originals are scarce, antique works with provenance; collectors value uniqueness, so high prices are justified. II. No, modern painters can paint as well or better for a much lower price.

Introduction / Context:
The question concerns valuation of “old master” originals. Strong arguments must connect to how art markets actually price works: scarcity, authenticity, provenance, historical importance, and collector demand. Arguments that ignore these drivers or compare unlike goods are usually weak.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Originals of old masters are, by definition, non-reproducible scarce goods.
• Collectors often pay for history, authorship, and provenance beyond pure visual similarity.
• We are evaluating justification in principle, not a specific price tag.

Concept / Approach:
Market justification hinges on uniqueness and willingness to pay. Replacement by a modern work with similar “look” does not eliminate the value created by originality and history. Therefore, an argument that invokes scarcity and provenance is stronger than one that claims substitutability by newer works.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Points to scarcity, antique status, and collector motives. These are the core economic drivers in art markets; this is a strong argument.Argument II: Asserts modern painters can paint “as well or better.” Even if true in technique, it overlooks authenticity and provenance. It compares non-equivalent goods; hence weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
If II had argued against speculative bubbles or price manipulation with evidence, it might gain strength. As stated, it fails to address uniqueness.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” would treat II as strong; it is not. “Neither” ignores the solid market rationale in I.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing aesthetic similarity with economic equivalence.

Final Answer:
Only Argument I is strong.