Art critic: But in a copy of Veronese’s painting made shortly after Veronese died, the cloak is red. It is highly unlikely that a copyist would have made so major a change so soon after Veronese’s death.
Summarize Argument
The curator argues that the decision to restore part of a painting to its original green, rather than the current red, is justified. The curator supports this claim by asserting that another artist probably added the red to the painting. This assertion is a sub-conclusion, because it is further supported by the factual premise that the red paint was a late addition to the painting, and wasn’t from the original artist’s workshop.
Identify Argument Part
The assertion that a later artist tampered with Veronese’s painting is a sub-conclusion in the curator’s argument. It is supported by evidence from x-ray and chemical tests, and in turn supports the conclusion that restoring the original green colour in the painting is justified.
A
It is the main point toward which the argument as a whole is directed.
The claim about another artist tampering with the painting supports the further conclusion that restoring the painting is justified, so it can’t be the main conclusion itself.
B
It is a subsidiary conclusion that supports the argument’s main conclusion.
This correctly characterizes the assertion that another artist tampered with the painting. That assertion is supported by factual evidence, but also supports the main conclusion: the whole reason restoration is justified is because the red wasn’t the original artist’s choice.
C
It is a clarification of a key term of the argument.
The claim about tampering doesn’t clarify any kind of terminology. In fact, no part of the argument focuses on clarifying terminology.
D
It is a particular instance of the general position to be defended.
The argument doesn’t state any general position to be defended. The curator’s entire focus is on one specific case, and there’s no general principle stated in the argument.
E
It is a reiteration of the main point that is made for the sake of emphasis.
The claim about tampering is not a restatement, nor is it restated. The curator never repeats a claim, including the true main point that the restoration is justified.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that it’s safer for dogs to get the vaccine than to skip it. She supports this by saying that the vaccine is almost 100% effective at preventing the disease. Also, the risk of death from the vaccine is 1 in 5,000, whereas 1 in 50 dogs who get the disease die.
Notable Assumptions
For the vaccine to be more beneficial than costly, the author must assume that the disease is fairly common. While 1 in 5,000 vaccinated dogs die, and 1 in 50 dogs who get the disease die, we don’t know how many dogs will actually get the disease in the first place.
She also assumes that her argument applies to any dog, without considering how the disease or vaccine might affect different breeds or dogs differently.
She also overlooks any unaddressed costs of getting the vaccine, or any unaddressed costs or benefits of not getting it.
A
the total number of dogs that die each year from all causes taken together
Irrelevant— the author only addresses deaths from this particular disease and vaccination. The number of dogs that die each year from everything else is not relevant to her argument.
B
whether the vaccine is effective against the disease in household pets other than dogs
Irrelevant— the author is only discussing the effectiveness of the vaccine among dogs. How other animals might be affected by the disease or the vaccine doesn’t matter here.
C
the number of dogs that die each year from diseases other than the disease in question
Irrelevant— like (D), the author is only concerned with the number of dogs that die each year from the particular disease in question. She doesn’t address the dangers or mortality rates of any other diseases.
D
the likelihood that a dog will contract another disease such as rabies
Irrelevant— like (C), the author’s argument only addresses the disease in question. It doesn’t matter how likely a dog might be to contract some other kind of disease.
E
the likelihood that an unvaccinated dog will contract the disease in question
If the likelihood of catching the disease is high, getting the vaccine may indeed be more beneficial, since the risk of death from the vaccine is much lower than from the disease. But if the likelihood is low, the added risk of vaccination might be more costly overall.