The following paragraph presents an argument about art history:
Some art historians maintain that the recent discovery of the lost frescoes at Villa Sabina proves that the painter Caracciolo was active in Rome a decade earlier than previously believed. This assertion, however, is unfounded. Caracciolo's distinct method of layering lapis lazuli pigment did not develop until his later Neapolitan period. Furthermore, the chemical composition of the plaster at Villa Sabina matches techniques widely used by other Roman guilds during that time, but not by Caracciolo's known workshop. Because of these discrepancies, the frescoes were likely painted by a contemporary imitator rather than by Caracciolo himself. Thus, the discovery provides no reliable evidence for revising the timeline of Caracciolo's career.
Identify the role played in the author's reasoning by each of the specific excerpts below. Match the excerpt to its exact structural function.
- "...the recent discovery of the lost frescoes at Villa Sabina proves that the painter Caracciolo was active in Rome a decade earlier than previously believed."A claim that the argument as a whole is designed to refute.
- "Caracciolo's distinct method of layering lapis lazuli pigment did not develop until his later Neapolitan period."A premise offered in support of a subsidiary conclusion.
- "...the frescoes were likely painted by a contemporary imitator rather than by Caracciolo himself."A subsidiary conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion.
- "...the discovery provides no reliable evidence for revising the timeline of Caracciolo's career."The main conclusion of the argument.