Museums that house Renaissance oil paintings typically store them in environments that are carefully kept within narrow margins of temperature and humidity to inhibit any deterioration. Laboratory tests have shown that the kind of oil paint used in these paintings actually adjusts to climatic changes quite well. If, as some museum directors believe, paint is the most sensitive substance in these works, then by relaxing the standards for temperature and humidity control, museums can reduce energy costs without risking damage to these paintings. Museums would be rash to relax those standards, however, since results of preliminary tests indicate that gesso, a compound routinely used by Renaissance artists to help paint adhere to the canvas, is unable to withstand significant variations in humidity.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
a) The first is an objection that has been raised against the position taken by the argument; the second is the position taken by the argument.
b) The first is the position taken by the argument; the second is the position that the argument calls into question.
c) The first is a judgment that has been offered in support of the position that the argument calls into question; the second is a circumstance on which that judgment is, in part, based.
d)The first is a judgment that has been offered in support of the position that the argument calls into question; the second is that position.
e) The first is a claim that the argument calls into question; the second is the position taken by the argument.
After reading this, I was able to make a few inferences.
1st BF: premise/condition for the 2nd BF
Both statements are coherent, that is they don't contradict and are towards the same viewpoint( of the music directors)
Under this perspective, A,B and E were straight out.
After this, things were tricky.
C suggests that paint's sensitive nature is based ON museum's energy saving nature-This sounds nonsensical if I rightly understood.
Via elimination, D alone is left. I understand that 1st boldface is a condition/judgement and that second is the position taken by music directors but I couldn't get why this position is challenged in the argument.
The music officials believe: If paint is the most sensitive substance in these works, then museums can reduce energy costs without risking damage to these paintings
Main point of argument: Since gesso, a compound routinely used by Renaissance artists to help paint adhere to the canvas, is unable to withstand significant variations in humidity, so the temperature and humidity control can not be laxed.
Music officials position is applicable IF the paint is most sensitive substance (if paint is not the most sensitive, they seem to be okay with that), whereas the argument's main point is based on gesso, a compound that helps paint adhere but not the paint. So, I think the argument doesn't question the officials position.
Please help me find the flaw in this reasoning.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
a) The first is an objection that has been raised against the position taken by the argument; the second is the position taken by the argument.
b) The first is the position taken by the argument; the second is the position that the argument calls into question.
c) The first is a judgment that has been offered in support of the position that the argument calls into question; the second is a circumstance on which that judgment is, in part, based.
d)The first is a judgment that has been offered in support of the position that the argument calls into question; the second is that position.
e) The first is a claim that the argument calls into question; the second is the position taken by the argument.
After reading this, I was able to make a few inferences.
1st BF: premise/condition for the 2nd BF
Both statements are coherent, that is they don't contradict and are towards the same viewpoint( of the music directors)
Under this perspective, A,B and E were straight out.
After this, things were tricky.
C suggests that paint's sensitive nature is based ON museum's energy saving nature-This sounds nonsensical if I rightly understood.
Via elimination, D alone is left. I understand that 1st boldface is a condition/judgement and that second is the position taken by music directors but I couldn't get why this position is challenged in the argument.
The music officials believe: If paint is the most sensitive substance in these works, then museums can reduce energy costs without risking damage to these paintings
Main point of argument: Since gesso, a compound routinely used by Renaissance artists to help paint adhere to the canvas, is unable to withstand significant variations in humidity, so the temperature and humidity control can not be laxed.
Music officials position is applicable IF the paint is most sensitive substance (if paint is not the most sensitive, they seem to be okay with that), whereas the argument's main point is based on gesso, a compound that helps paint adhere but not the paint. So, I think the argument doesn't question the officials position.
Please help me find the flaw in this reasoning.
