Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 1810:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 25 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products. Ends 6/1
May 1501:00 PM IST
-11:00 AM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.- May 19
12:00 PM PDT
-01:00 PM PDT
Scoring 329 on the GRE is not always about using more books, more courses, or a longer study plan. In this episode of GRE Success Talks, Ashutosh shares his GRE preparation strategy, study plan, and test-day experience, explaining how he kept his prep.... - Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
14 Oct 2025, 18:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
When Lord Elgin removed portions of the Parthenon’s sculptural frieze in the early nineteenth century, his actions reflected the prevailing assumption that great art belonged wherever it could be most carefully preserved and most widely admired. Two centuries later, those same marbles, housed in London’s British Museum, stand at the center of a moral dispute less about art itself than about the changing meaning of cultural stewardship. The question of whether such artifacts should remain in Western institutions or be returned to their places of origin now engages not merely legal ownership but evolving conceptions of historical justice and global heritage.
Defenders of retention, often invoking the ideal of the “universal museum,” argue that art transcends geography. By situating objects from diverse civilizations side by side, museums encourage comparative understanding and present culture as a shared human achievement. They also claim a pragmatic virtue: artifacts are safeguarded under stable conditions and made accessible to an international public that might never travel to their countries of origin. In this view, returning objects risks fragmenting the global narrative of art and exposing works to political volatility or inadequate conservation.
Advocates of repatriation counter that such universalism, however noble in language, rests on a history of unequal power. Many collections were assembled through conquest, coercion, or opportunism disguised as preservation. To retain such works is, they contend, to perpetuate the asymmetries of empire and to deny communities the material anchors of their own memory. A sculpture removed from its temple or a mask stripped from its ritual context may lose precisely the cultural resonance that justifies its value in the first place.
What is emerging, then, is not a simple call for restitution but a redefinition of stewardship itself, from ownership and display toward acknowledgment and collaboration. The modern museum is being asked to function less as the custodian of other peoples’ pasts than as a partner in restoring them. Whether this transformation will reconcile the competing claims of universality and restitution remains uncertain, but the debate has already ensured that the virtues once taken for granted- possession, preservation, and prestige- no longer constitute an uncontested moral defense.
Which of the following best describes the author’s view of the “universal museum” ideal?
A. It remains the most effective means of preserving and interpreting the world’s artistic heritage.
B. It may still serve as a framework if museums redefine stewardship by sharing authority and collaborating with source communities.
C. The author expresses no clear opinion and merely reports the rationale offered by defenders of retention.
D. It should be replaced entirely by a system that returns all artworks to their countries of origin.
E. It was once a useful conception of stewardship, but its moral foundations have become increasingly inadequate.
Defenders of retention, often invoking the ideal of the “universal museum,” argue that art transcends geography. By situating objects from diverse civilizations side by side, museums encourage comparative understanding and present culture as a shared human achievement. They also claim a pragmatic virtue: artifacts are safeguarded under stable conditions and made accessible to an international public that might never travel to their countries of origin. In this view, returning objects risks fragmenting the global narrative of art and exposing works to political volatility or inadequate conservation.
Advocates of repatriation counter that such universalism, however noble in language, rests on a history of unequal power. Many collections were assembled through conquest, coercion, or opportunism disguised as preservation. To retain such works is, they contend, to perpetuate the asymmetries of empire and to deny communities the material anchors of their own memory. A sculpture removed from its temple or a mask stripped from its ritual context may lose precisely the cultural resonance that justifies its value in the first place.
What is emerging, then, is not a simple call for restitution but a redefinition of stewardship itself, from ownership and display toward acknowledgment and collaboration. The modern museum is being asked to function less as the custodian of other peoples’ pasts than as a partner in restoring them. Whether this transformation will reconcile the competing claims of universality and restitution remains uncertain, but the debate has already ensured that the virtues once taken for granted- possession, preservation, and prestige- no longer constitute an uncontested moral defense.
Which of the following best describes the author’s view of the “universal museum” ideal?
A. It remains the most effective means of preserving and interpreting the world’s artistic heritage.
B. It may still serve as a framework if museums redefine stewardship by sharing authority and collaborating with source communities.
C. The author expresses no clear opinion and merely reports the rationale offered by defenders of retention.
D. It should be replaced entirely by a system that returns all artworks to their countries of origin.
E. It was once a useful conception of stewardship, but its moral foundations have become increasingly inadequate.
14 Oct 2025, 18:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
When Lord Elgin removed portions of the Parthenon’s sculptural frieze in the early nineteenth century, his actions reflected the prevailing assumption that great art belonged wherever it could be most carefully preserved and most widely admired. Two centuries later, those same marbles, housed in London’s British Museum, stand at the center of a moral dispute less about art itself than about the changing meaning of cultural stewardship. The question of whether such artifacts should remain in Western institutions or be returned to their places of origin now engages not merely legal ownership but evolving conceptions of historical justice and global heritage.
Defenders of retention, often invoking the ideal of the “universal museum,” argue that art transcends geography. By situating objects from diverse civilizations side by side, museums encourage comparative understanding and present culture as a shared human achievement. They also claim a pragmatic virtue: artifacts are safeguarded under stable conditions and made accessible to an international public that might never travel to their countries of origin. In this view, returning objects risks fragmenting the global narrative of art and exposing works to political volatility or inadequate conservation.
Advocates of repatriation counter that such universalism, however noble in language, rests on a history of unequal power. Many collections were assembled through conquest, coercion, or opportunism disguised as preservation. To retain such works is, they contend, to perpetuate the asymmetries of empire and to deny communities the material anchors of their own memory. A sculpture removed from its temple or a mask stripped from its ritual context may lose precisely the cultural resonance that justifies its value in the first place.
What is emerging, then, is not a simple call for restitution but a redefinition of stewardship itself, from ownership and display toward acknowledgment and collaboration. The modern museum is being asked to function less as the custodian of other peoples’ pasts than as a partner in restoring them. Whether this transformation will reconcile the competing claims of universality and restitution remains uncertain, but the debate has already ensured that the virtues once taken for granted- possession, preservation, and prestige- no longer constitute an uncontested moral defense.
Which of the following best describes the author’s view of the “universal museum” ideal?
A. It remains the most effective means of preserving and interpreting the world’s artistic heritage.
B. It may still serve as a framework if museums redefine stewardship by sharing authority and collaborating with source communities.
C. The author expresses no clear opinion and merely reports the rationale offered by defenders of retention.
D. It should be replaced entirely by a system that returns all artworks to their countries of origin.
E. It was once a useful conception of stewardship, but its moral foundations have become increasingly inadequate.
A) Incorrect. The author notes that possession, preservation, and prestige “no longer constitute an uncontested moral defense.” This indicates doubt about the universal museum’s continued effectiveness as the best model.
B) Incorrect. The passage does mention a shift toward partnership and shared authority, yet the author does not say that such changes will save the universal museum ideal. The outcome is called “uncertain,” so claiming it “may still serve as a framework” goes beyond what is stated.
C) Incorrect. The author does more than report defenders’ rationale. The text evaluates that rationale, pointing out its limitations and noting that its moral defense is now contested.
D) Incorrect. The author does not call for returning all artworks to their countries of origin. The passage discusses collaboration and acknowledgment rather than total restitution.
E) Correct Answer. The universal museum was once seen as a virtuous model, but the author explains that its moral foundations are now questioned. The phrase “virtues once taken for granted... no longer constitute an uncontested moral defense” shows that the ideal has become inadequate in the current ethical climate.
Answer: E
When Lord Elgin removed portions of the Parthenon’s sculptural frieze in the early nineteenth century, his actions reflected the prevailing assumption that great art belonged wherever it could be most carefully preserved and most widely admired. Two centuries later, those same marbles, housed in London’s British Museum, stand at the center of a moral dispute less about art itself than about the changing meaning of cultural stewardship. The question of whether such artifacts should remain in Western institutions or be returned to their places of origin now engages not merely legal ownership but evolving conceptions of historical justice and global heritage.
Defenders of retention, often invoking the ideal of the “universal museum,” argue that art transcends geography. By situating objects from diverse civilizations side by side, museums encourage comparative understanding and present culture as a shared human achievement. They also claim a pragmatic virtue: artifacts are safeguarded under stable conditions and made accessible to an international public that might never travel to their countries of origin. In this view, returning objects risks fragmenting the global narrative of art and exposing works to political volatility or inadequate conservation.
Advocates of repatriation counter that such universalism, however noble in language, rests on a history of unequal power. Many collections were assembled through conquest, coercion, or opportunism disguised as preservation. To retain such works is, they contend, to perpetuate the asymmetries of empire and to deny communities the material anchors of their own memory. A sculpture removed from its temple or a mask stripped from its ritual context may lose precisely the cultural resonance that justifies its value in the first place.
What is emerging, then, is not a simple call for restitution but a redefinition of stewardship itself, from ownership and display toward acknowledgment and collaboration. The modern museum is being asked to function less as the custodian of other peoples’ pasts than as a partner in restoring them. Whether this transformation will reconcile the competing claims of universality and restitution remains uncertain, but the debate has already ensured that the virtues once taken for granted- possession, preservation, and prestige- no longer constitute an uncontested moral defense.
Which of the following best describes the author’s view of the “universal museum” ideal?
A. It remains the most effective means of preserving and interpreting the world’s artistic heritage.
B. It may still serve as a framework if museums redefine stewardship by sharing authority and collaborating with source communities.
C. The author expresses no clear opinion and merely reports the rationale offered by defenders of retention.
D. It should be replaced entirely by a system that returns all artworks to their countries of origin.
E. It was once a useful conception of stewardship, but its moral foundations have become increasingly inadequate.
A) Incorrect. The author notes that possession, preservation, and prestige “no longer constitute an uncontested moral defense.” This indicates doubt about the universal museum’s continued effectiveness as the best model.
B) Incorrect. The passage does mention a shift toward partnership and shared authority, yet the author does not say that such changes will save the universal museum ideal. The outcome is called “uncertain,” so claiming it “may still serve as a framework” goes beyond what is stated.
C) Incorrect. The author does more than report defenders’ rationale. The text evaluates that rationale, pointing out its limitations and noting that its moral defense is now contested.
D) Incorrect. The author does not call for returning all artworks to their countries of origin. The passage discusses collaboration and acknowledgment rather than total restitution.
E) Correct Answer. The universal museum was once seen as a virtuous model, but the author explains that its moral foundations are now questioned. The phrase “virtues once taken for granted... no longer constitute an uncontested moral defense” shows that the ideal has become inadequate in the current ethical climate.
Answer: E
25 Apr 2026, 02:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
I did not quite understand the question and I don’t quite agree with the solution. You cannot assume that the author thinks it was "a useful conception of stewardship". That is completely out of scope.
