Passage Summary: We have an equal number of old Dutch landscapes labeled as being by famous artists and minor artists. But back in the day, the minor artists were cranking out way more paintings than the few famous ones were. This mismatch suggests a lot of those 'famous' labels are probably wrong.

Conclusion: Many 17th-century Dutch landscape paintings currently attributed to major artists are likely misattributed.

Reasoning: There were far more minor artists producing a high volume of work for a large market than there were major artists, yet the number of surviving paintings attributed to each group is roughly equal.

Analysis: The argument relies on a statistical discrepancy: if minor artists produced the vast majority of the work, we would expect them to represent the vast majority of surviving works. To strengthen this, we need to rule out reasons why the numbers might have evened out naturally over time. For instance, if major artists' works were much more likely to be preserved than minor ones, that would explain the current equality without needing to assume misattribution. Look for an answer that suggests the survival rates were similar or that minor artists' works haven't disappeared at a disproportionate rate.