The curator's main point or conclusion is that 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.
Remember that the main conclusion will not support any other sentence in the passage. It's easy to distinguish between a main conclusion and a subsidiary conclusion. Look at each separately and see which supports the other. The one that supports is the subsidiary conclusion.
Let's look at the first and last sentence. The last sentence clearly supports the first in that it is giving a reason why the decision is a justified decision. BECAUSE it's likely that an artist other than Veronese tampered with Veronese's painting after its completion, the decision to restore the cloak of the central figure is fully justified.
That is why (B) is the correct answer, because the assertion that a later artist tampered with Veronese's painting serves as the subsidiary as opposed to the main conclusion.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any more questions!
farzanazrMarch 22, 2018
Hey there, so if there are two arguments in the passage (like this one with the art critic and the curator), each argument functions separately as its own passage? Meaning, when it comes to the question stem referring to a statement in only the curator's argument, the "conclusion" can only be found in the curator's argument and not the collective whole of the two arguments? Just making sure. Thanks.
sweingarApril 8, 2018
Why would the last sentence be considered a subsidiary conclusion as opposed to a premise?
MazenFebruary 10, 2020
A subsidiary conclusion is a premise. However, it is a premise that is supported by evidence, and, is supporting the main conclusion of the argument. Another phrase that I think is appropriate for it (subsidiary conclusion) is "intermediary conclusion."
