Q9 - Curator: The decision to restore

[uhdang]

This question asks you to identify the structure of the stimulus. Figuring out the Core is very helpful. Here is the Core:

(Curator)

Reliable X ray and chemical tests show that red pigment was applied after the painting had been completed + red paint was not mixed in Veronese’s workshop
==>
It appears likely that an artist other than Veronese tampered with the painting after completion
==>
Decision to restore the cloak of the central figure in Veronese paint from present red to green is fully justified.

No need to analyze Art Critic's argument, but here we go.

(Art critic)
Copy of V’s painting shortly after he died had the cloak of red
==>
Highly unlikely that a copyist would have made so major a change so soon after V’s death.

@ Curator's argument structure is the one with an intermediate conclusion. In this type of argument, there are at least two major gaps involved in between a premise and an intermediate conclusion as well as an intermediate conclusion and a final conclusion. For the sake of curiosity and fun, let's go through the assumptions!

First of all, between premises and intermediate conclusion.

1) It is assumed that an artist other than V’s tampering with the painting after completion is the only possibility that newly applied red paint could be found. What if it was some other causes? What if it was ordered by V to be done after his death, so it wasn't TAMPERING but a legitimate work?

2) There is no way red paint could have been used because there was no red paint mixed in V's workshop. What if somebody brought it from some other workshop?

Secondly, between an intermediate conclusion and final conclusion

3) It is assumed that restoring the cloak color is justified only because it was found out that tampering was done. What if restoring it have a high likelihood of damaging the whole painting? Shouldn’t we keep it as it is now, then?

@ While Art Critic is raising a point that could challenge Curator's conclusion, figuring out what the question is asking for is a piece of cake after we have gone through the Core. As we can see above, "a later artist tampered with Veronese’s painting” serves as an Intermediate Conclusion, so the correct answer is B)

===== Answer Analysis =====

A) Not the main conclusion but an intermediate conclusion.
B) Correct
C) Key term is not even present.
D) Not an instance, but an alleged claim as an intermediate conclusion.
E) Reiteration of an intermediate conclusion would have been close at least, but not it.

[lolitatrekkie]

If the intermediary conclusion in the curator's argument "is that a later artist tampered with Veronese's painting " then is the main conclusion, "the decision to restore the cloak of the central figure in Veronese's painting.... is justified"?

Thank you!