Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumPrinciple - Justify

Art Historian: The planned restoration of the municipal fresco will undoubtedly destroy the centuries-old patina that has developed on its surface. Nevertheless, the restoration should proceed. The process will successfully remove centuries of grime to uncover the brilliant pigments originally applied by the fresco's creator.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the art historian's reasoning?

  1. Any art restoration process that uncovers the original pigments applied by the creator should proceed, regardless of whether it destroys a centuries-old patina.Answer
  2. B
    An art restoration project should not be undertaken if it will result in the destruction of a centuries-old patina.
  3. C
    If an art restoration process should proceed, it must be capable of successfully uncovering the original pigments applied by the creator.
  4. D
    The preservation of original pigments is generally more important to art historians than the preservation of a centuries-old patina.
  5. E
    The only historical layers of a fresco that have any aesthetic value are the brilliant pigments originally applied by its creator.

Answer

The principle stating that any process uncovering original pigments should proceed regardless of destroying a patina.
The correct answer perfectly bridges the logical gap in the stimulus. The art historian argues that because the restoration uncovers original pigments, it should proceed, despite the cost of destroying the patina. By providing a universal rule stating 'If a process uncovers original pigments, it should proceed regardless of destroying a patina', this answer choice logically forces the historian's conclusion to be true when combined with the stated premises.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is: 'the restoration should proceed.'
This is the primary claim the art historian is trying to prove.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Premise 1: The restoration will destroy a centuries-old patina. Premise 2: The restoration will uncover the brilliant pigments originally applied by the creator.
These are the facts provided to support the conclusion.
3
Identify the logical gap in the argument.
The argument jumps from a factual statement about uncovering pigments and destroying a patina to a normative conclusion that the action 'should proceed'.
Factual premises alone cannot logically entail a 'should' conclusion without a guiding principle.
4
Formulate a sufficient rule to bridge the gap.
If a project uncovers original pigments (even if it destroys a patina), then the project should proceed.
A 'justify' question requires a principle that, when added to the premises, guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

Key Concept

Principle - Justify
Rate this question

Topics

Principle - Justify

More questions from this topic