To prevent the degradation of 17th-century oil paintings, conservators in Florence recently introduced nitrogen-purged display cases. While skeptics argued that the initial installation costs would burden museum budgets, recent environmental monitoring confirms that these sealed enclosures reduce oxidative damage by over 80 percent, thereby eliminating the need for frequent, costly chemical restorations. Therefore, adopting nitrogen-purged enclosures is ultimately a cost-effective strategy for long-term art preservation.
Which of the following statements functions as the primary premise offered in support of the argument's main conclusion?
- AConservators in Florence recently introduced nitrogen-purged display cases to prevent the degradation of 17th-century oil paintings.
- BInitial installation costs of nitrogen-purged display cases would place a financial burden on museum budgets.
- Environmental monitoring confirms that sealed enclosures reduce oxidative damage by over 80 percent, eliminating frequent chemical restorations.Cevap
- DAdopting nitrogen-purged enclosures is ultimately a cost-effective strategy for long-term art preservation.
- EChemical restorations have historically been the most effective method for repairing degraded oil paintings.
Cevap
The statement confirming that sealed enclosures reduce oxidative damage by over 80 percent, thereby eliminating frequent chemical restorations, serves as the primary premise.
The claim that environmental monitoring confirms an 80 percent reduction in oxidative damage and eliminates frequent chemical restorations provides the essential factual evidence supporting the author's conclusion that nitrogen-purged enclosures are cost-effective.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Identifying Premises and Evidence