Self-study
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 ████ █████ ██████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ █ █████ ██ █████████
The claim about another artist tampering with the painting supports the further conclusion that restoring the painting is justified, so it can’t be the main conclusion itself.
b
It is a ██████████ ██████████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███████████
This correctly characterizes the assertion that another artist tampered with the painting. That assertion is supported by factual evidence, but also supports the main conclusion: the whole reason restoration is justified is because the red wasn’t the original artist’s choice.
c
It is a █████████████ ██ █ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████
The claim about tampering doesn’t clarify any kind of terminology. In fact, no part of the argument focuses on clarifying terminology.
d
It is a ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ██ █████████
The argument doesn’t state any general position to be defended. The curator’s entire focus is on one specific case, and there’s no general principle stated in the argument.
e
It is a ███████████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██ █████████
The claim about tampering is not a restatement, nor is it restated. The curator never repeats a claim, including the true main point that the restoration is justified.