Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorStrengthening Arguments

To restore seventeenth-century canvas paintings damaged by ambient humidity, conservators introduced a synthetic non-polar solvent designed to remove degraded varnish without penetrating water-soluble paint layers. Five years post-treatment, paintings restored with the non-polar solvent exhibited a forty percent lower incidence of structural paint-cracking than paintings restored using traditional aqueous cleaning solutions. The lead conservator concluded that the non-polar solvent successfully prevents paint-cracking by leaving the moisture content of the underlying canvas fibers unperturbed. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the lead conservator's argument?

  1. Paintings subjected to traditional aqueous cleaning solutions whose canvas fibers were artificially stabilized against moisture loss prior to treatment showed paint-cracking rates identical to those treated with the non-polar solvent.Cevap
  2. B
    The synthetic non-polar solvent costs significantly more to produce and requires specialized ventilation equipment during application compared to traditional aqueous solutions.
  3. C
    Traditional aqueous cleaning solutions remove surface varnish twice as quickly as the synthetic non-polar solvent does.
  4. D
    The non-polar solvent leaves a microscopic chemical residue on the paint surface that attracts ambient atmospheric moisture over time.
  5. E
    Seventeenth-century paintings restored prior to the introduction of aqueous cleaning solutions exhibited structural paint-cracking patterns attributable to pigment oxidation.

Cevap

The correct option is the one stating that paintings treated with aqueous solutions whose canvas fibers were artificially stabilized against moisture loss showed cracking rates identical to those treated with the non-polar solvent.
The conclusion asserts a specific causal relationship: the non-polar solvent prevents paint-cracking because it leaves the moisture content of the canvas fibers unperturbed (whereas aqueous solutions disrupt it). The correct choice provides classic counterfactual support: when canvas fibers in paintings treated with aqueous solutions are pre-stabilized to prevent moisture loss, their cracking rates drop to match those of the non-polar solvent group. This demonstrates that moisture perturbation was indeed the variable responsible for the higher cracking rate, directly reinforcing the lead conservator's conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument into premise and conclusion.
Premise: Paintings restored with a non-polar solvent had 40% less cracking after 5 years than those restored with traditional aqueous solutions. Conclusion: The non-polar solvent prevents cracking specifically by leaving the moisture content of the canvas fibers unperturbed.
Identifying the explicit causal link proposed by the author (unperturbed moisture content -> reduced cracking) is essential for evaluating candidate strengtheners.
2
Identify the required strengthening mechanism.
To strengthen a specific causal claim, we can confirm the causal link by showing that when the proposed cause (moisture perturbation) is removed from the control group (aqueous treatment), the negative effect (cracking) disappears.
Showing that controlling moisture loss in the aqueous group eliminates the difference in cracking proves that moisture disruption was indeed the underlying cause.
3
Evaluate the choices against this logical requirement.
The option describing stabilized canvas fibers demonstrates that when moisture loss is prevented during aqueous treatment, cracking drops to match the non-polar solvent level, solidly confirming the conservator's hypothesis.
This controlled counterfactual isolates the exact causal mechanism asserted in the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening a Causal Argument via Controlled Counterfactual Evidence
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Strengthening Arguments

Bu konudan daha fazla soru