Curator: Critics have rightly

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

   The decision as to whether an artwork merits restoration or not should depend on its greatness as judged

   The first half of this works, but the second half should match the Evidence say "... should depend on whether it can presently be seen as it appeared when the artist created it". The author didn't argue, "The restoration should continue, for these frescoes are aesthetically great".

   3%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   An artwork possesses aesthetic value only if there are people who observe

   This principle has no language that matches "whether we should or shouldn't continue with the restoration". You could only use this principle to derive that artwork does not possess aesthetic value. No one observes ? X possesses no or appreciates X aesthetic value

   1%
3. C

   Correct87% picked this

   It is acceptable to risk future damage to an artwork if the purpose is to enable it to be

   Why this is right

   This is not a lovable answer on the first pass, because it has no language about should / shouldn't do the restoration. But this is the Weighing Tradeoffs form of a correct answer. It's saying, "We're okay with the downside (exposing this to acids that could cause future damage to the frescoes) if the restoration can enable people to appreciate these frescoes in their original form (enables people to see them as they appeared to Michelangelo when he painted them."

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   87%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion / Evidence Match1% picked this

   It is right to spend large amounts of money on the restoration of an old artwork if this restoration makes the artwork

   This is saying if it would make the it's right to spend art accessible to ? a ton of money lots of people on restoration Neither half of that conditional matches up with the argument. The premise was about "making the art appear as it originally did", not "making it accessible to lots of people". And the conclusion was saying "we should restore the artwork", not "it is right to spend lots of money on restoration". The outcome of this answer we could probably live with, since it still strengthens the idea that we should do the restoration, but the trigger doesn't match anything we were told about this restoration to it's an un-triggered conditional.

   1%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match8% picked this

   A picture that has become encrusted with grime over a long period can no longer be regarded as the same work of art

   This has nothing to do with instructing us on whether we should or shouldn't do the restoration. This principle would only help us conclude whether something should or shouldn't be considered the same work. The argument didn't say, "Since these frescoes are covered in grime, we can therefore no longer consider them Michelangelo's frescoes."

   8%