The question asks you to consider what role the assertion that a later artist tampered with Veronese’s painting serves in the curator’s argument. In order to answer this questions, let’s look carefully at the curator’s argument. He begins by saying the decision to restore the figure’s cloak from red to green is justified. Why is it justified? He goes on to explain that reliable tests show the red color was added after the painting was complete and the paint was not mixed in Veronese’s workshop. These two pieces of evidence lead to curator to believe that another artist tampered with the painting and altered it to make the cloak red.
All that follows from the first sentence supports the curator’s position that restoring the cloak to its original green is justified. The first sentence is the main conclusion. The assertion that a later artist tampered with the painting is a subsidiary conclusion, supported by the evidence from the x-ray and chemical tests. Because another artist changed the color of the cloak, the decision to restore it to the original color is justified. The assertion about the other artist is therefore a subsidiary conclusion that supports the argument’s main conclusion. Answer B is correct.
Let’s look at each of the other answer choices in turn.
Answer A says that it is the main point toward which the argument as a whole is directed. The fact that another artist tampered with the painting is not the main point. The main point is that restoring the painting to its original color scheme is justified. The tricky part of this question is that the art critic takes issue with the subsidiary conclusion, leading you to believe it is the main point. Don’t be distracted by the art critic’s response and instead remember the main point of the curator’s argument.
Answer C says it is a clarification of a key term of the argument. The assertion that another artist tampered with the painting does not clarify any term of the argument. Therefore, this is the wrong choice.
Answer D says it is a particular instance of the general position to be defended. That is not the case here. The curator’s position is that the decision to restore the painting to the original color scheme is justified. The assertion about another artist is not a particular instance of this conclusion. Instead, it is a subsidiary conclusion that supports the main conclusion.
Finally, Answer E says that it is a reiteration of the main point made for the sake of emphasis. Again, the main point is that a decisions to restore the painting is justified. The assertion about another artist is not a reiteration of this conclusion.
I hope this is helpful. Please reach out with other questions!
