For this Bolface CR model, my strategy is
0. Simplify
the core meaning
1. To
find the conclusion owned by the author, then
2. Find its
reasoningIn this statement, we can simplify
- OLD BUILDING reconstructed with NEW public SPACES
-
1st opinion -> some historians: RECONSTRUCTED (OLD+NEW) building = worthy as originals (OLD)- WHY? because the NEW=OLD
- 2nd opinion (the author main conclusion) -> spot HOWEVER (meaning: contrast/different/counter the previous statetment) -> OLD/HISTORICAL = AUTHENTICITY physical links to earlier generations
- WHY -> because AUTENTHICITY diminished when RECONSTRUCTED (OLD+NEW)So, we can grasp
the author conclusion -> 2nd opinion and challenge the 1st opinion.
Then, the relevant answer is E where (1) the position that curator oposes, (2) the justifications/WHY behind the curator's conclusion
To make sure others incorrect, I did not spot one by one, just to review why they might wrong in min 1 out of 2. For example,
A. This is the counter of the curator's conclusion/main statement
B. They talk about EVIDENCE, but (1) and (2) not correlate positively for evidence-claim relationship
C. (1) It not defending the curator's assumption, because it's evidence from others historians opinions
D. (1) It is not a claim, but an evidence for the claim that the curator challenges, (2) is not the conclusion, but the WHY/argument to support the conclusion
BunuelQuote:
Museum curator: Some old buildings in our city have been reconstructed after earthquakes, and lively new public spaces have emerged within them. Some historians maintain that these reconstructed buildings are as worthy of admiration as the originals.
They preserve the same architectural style and are often indistinguishable from the older structures. However, part of what makes historic buildings valuable is that they are authentic physical links to earlier generations.
That sense of authenticity is diminished when a building is known to be a reconstruction.Which of the following best describes the roles of the two portions in boldface?
A. The first is a premise of the curator’s argument; the second addresses an objection to the curator’s conclusion.
B. The first presents evidence for a claim; the second explains why that evidence supports the curator’s conclusion.
C. The first defends an assumption made by the curator; the second explains why the curator’s conclusion undermines the position that the curator challenges.
D. The first is the claim that the curator directly challenges; the second is the conclusion defended by the curator’s argument.
E. The first is used to support the position that the curator opposes; the second elaborates on the justification for the curator’s conclusion.
Gift
12 Days of Christmas Competition
This question is part of our holiday event
Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more