Subscription pricing
Curator: The decision to restore the cloak of the central figure in Veronese's painting from its present red to the green found underneath is fully justified. ████████ █████ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ███ ████ ███ ███ █████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ █████████ █████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ████████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ████████ █████ ███ ███████████
███ ███████ ███ ██ █ ████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███████ █████ ████████ █████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ████████ ████ █ ███████ █████ ████ ████ ██ █████ █ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ██████████ ██████
Summarize Argument
The curator argues that the decision to restore part of a painting to its original green, rather than the current red, is justified. The curator supports this claim by asserting that another artist probably added the red to the painting. This assertion is a sub-conclusion, because it is further supported by the factual premise that the red paint was a late addition to the painting, and wasn’t from the original artist’s workshop.
Identify Argument Part
The assertion that a later artist tampered with Veronese’s painting is a sub-conclusion in the curator’s argument. It is supported by evidence from x-ray and chemical tests, and in turn supports the conclusion that restoring the original green colour in the painting is justified.
9.
The assertion that a later ██████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ████████ ██████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████
a
It is the ████ █████ ██████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ █ █████ ██ █████████
b
It is a ██████████ ██████████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███████████
c
It is a █████████████ ██ █ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████
d
It is a ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ██ █████████
e
It is a ███████████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██ █████████