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.
Aug 2710:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0410:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
What does test anxiety really look like on the GMAT? For many test takers, it does not look like a panic attack. Instead, it shows up as brain fog, rereading, negative comparisons, mental noise....
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.- Sep 07
12:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
14 Oct 2025, 19:17
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.
The first paragraph of the passage serves primarily to
A. introduce a broader debate about the ethics of cultural stewardship.
B. summarize opposing views regarding the proper ownership of ancient art.
C. describe the shift from traditional notions of preservation to modern ideas of moral responsibility.
D. argue that nineteenth-century attitudes toward art preservation were unjustified.
E. call for a redefinition of the meaning of cultural ownership with respect to artifacts.
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.
The first paragraph of the passage serves primarily to
A. introduce a broader debate about the ethics of cultural stewardship.
B. summarize opposing views regarding the proper ownership of ancient art.
C. describe the shift from traditional notions of preservation to modern ideas of moral responsibility.
D. argue that nineteenth-century attitudes toward art preservation were unjustified.
E. call for a redefinition of the meaning of cultural ownership with respect to artifacts.
14 Oct 2025, 19:17
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.
The first paragraph of the passage serves primarily to
A. introduce a broader debate about the ethics of cultural stewardship.
B. summarize opposing views regarding the proper ownership of ancient art.
C. describe the shift from traditional notions of preservation to modern ideas of moral responsibility.
D. argue that nineteenth-century attitudes toward art preservation were unjustified.
E. call for a redefinition of the meaning of cultural ownership with respect to artifacts.
A) Correct. The rest of the passage is devoted to two opposing positions—retention versus repatriation—and to a possible middle ground of collaborative stewardship. The first paragraph sets that entire debate in motion. It begins with Lord Elgin’s nineteenth-century removal of the marbles, then jumps forward to show the same objects at the center of a “moral dispute.” By ending with the question of where such artifacts should reside, the paragraph introduces the broader debate about cultural stewardship that frames everything that follows.
B) Incorrect. Summaries of the opposing views come later when the author outlines arguments for retention and for repatriation. The opening paragraph does not yet present both sides in detail; it only signals that a debate exists.
C) Incorrect. The paragraph does contrast past ideas of preservation with present concerns about justice, but that historical contrast serves mainly to set up the debate. In the essay’s overall structure, introducing the controversy is the larger purpose.
D) Incorrect. The author does not pass judgment on nineteenth-century attitudes in the first paragraph, nor argue that they were unjustified. The focus is on the changing context, not on condemning earlier views.
E) Incorrect. A call to redefine ownership appears near the end of the passage. The opening paragraph stops short of urging a new definition; it merely frames the issue that will make such redefinition a topic.
Answer: A
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.
The first paragraph of the passage serves primarily to
A. introduce a broader debate about the ethics of cultural stewardship.
B. summarize opposing views regarding the proper ownership of ancient art.
C. describe the shift from traditional notions of preservation to modern ideas of moral responsibility.
D. argue that nineteenth-century attitudes toward art preservation were unjustified.
E. call for a redefinition of the meaning of cultural ownership with respect to artifacts.
A) Correct. The rest of the passage is devoted to two opposing positions—retention versus repatriation—and to a possible middle ground of collaborative stewardship. The first paragraph sets that entire debate in motion. It begins with Lord Elgin’s nineteenth-century removal of the marbles, then jumps forward to show the same objects at the center of a “moral dispute.” By ending with the question of where such artifacts should reside, the paragraph introduces the broader debate about cultural stewardship that frames everything that follows.
B) Incorrect. Summaries of the opposing views come later when the author outlines arguments for retention and for repatriation. The opening paragraph does not yet present both sides in detail; it only signals that a debate exists.
C) Incorrect. The paragraph does contrast past ideas of preservation with present concerns about justice, but that historical contrast serves mainly to set up the debate. In the essay’s overall structure, introducing the controversy is the larger purpose.
D) Incorrect. The author does not pass judgment on nineteenth-century attitudes in the first paragraph, nor argue that they were unjustified. The focus is on the changing context, not on condemning earlier views.
E) Incorrect. A call to redefine ownership appears near the end of the passage. The opening paragraph stops short of urging a new definition; it merely frames the issue that will make such redefinition a topic.
Answer: A
13 Feb 2026, 06:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
Having gone through the answer explanations, I'm still puzzled between A and C. What is the primary differentiator between options A and C? {Why not C}
