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 Sept. 6, 9:30am-12:30pm EST- 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
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 Oct. 13, 2026 - Jan. 7, 2027, 8:00pm-10:00pm EST
14 Oct 2025, 19:21
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 author implies that, even if the redefinition of stewardship succeeds, one challenge that will likely remain is
A. Improving the physical preservation of artworks in local institutions.
B. Preventing the fragmentation of the global narrative of art.
C. Determining how to balance universal access with cultural ownership.
D. Preserving the cultural context of artifacts currently in Western institutions.
E. Ensuring that all historical artifacts are returned to their original locations.
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 author implies that, even if the redefinition of stewardship succeeds, one challenge that will likely remain is
A. Improving the physical preservation of artworks in local institutions.
B. Preventing the fragmentation of the global narrative of art.
C. Determining how to balance universal access with cultural ownership.
D. Preserving the cultural context of artifacts currently in Western institutions.
E. Ensuring that all historical artifacts are returned to their original locations.
14 Oct 2025, 19:21
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 author implies that, even if the redefinition of stewardship succeeds, one challenge that will likely remain is
A. Improving the physical preservation of artworks in local institutions.
B. Preventing the fragmentation of the global narrative of art.
C. Determining how to balance universal access with cultural ownership.
D. Preserving the cultural context of artifacts currently in Western institutions.
E. Ensuring that all historical artifacts are returned to their original locations.
A) Incorrect. The passage never suggests that physical preservation in local museums is the lingering obstacle. Instead, it notes that Western institutions already emphasize conservation.
B) Incorrect. Fragmenting the worldwide story of art is a worry voiced by retention advocates, yet the author states that the real uncertainty lies in reconciling universal ideals with demands for restitution. The passage does not say this narrative concern will persist after stewardship is redefined.
C) Correct Answer. The final paragraph observes that it is “uncertain” whether the new, collaborative idea of stewardship will reconcile “the competing claims of universality and restitution.” In other words, even with redefined stewardship, museums must still find a balance between global access and the rights of source communities. This balancing act remains the likely ongoing challenge.
D) Incorrect. Preserving cultural context is presented as a reason for repatriation, but the author does not imply that this issue survives once stewardship becomes collaborative. The challenge highlighted is broader: resolving universality versus restitution.
E) Incorrect. The passage rejects a blanket return of all artifacts, describing the emerging approach as collaboration rather than complete restitution. Ensuring every object goes back is not identified as the enduring difficulty.
Answer: C
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 author implies that, even if the redefinition of stewardship succeeds, one challenge that will likely remain is
A. Improving the physical preservation of artworks in local institutions.
B. Preventing the fragmentation of the global narrative of art.
C. Determining how to balance universal access with cultural ownership.
D. Preserving the cultural context of artifacts currently in Western institutions.
E. Ensuring that all historical artifacts are returned to their original locations.
A) Incorrect. The passage never suggests that physical preservation in local museums is the lingering obstacle. Instead, it notes that Western institutions already emphasize conservation.
B) Incorrect. Fragmenting the worldwide story of art is a worry voiced by retention advocates, yet the author states that the real uncertainty lies in reconciling universal ideals with demands for restitution. The passage does not say this narrative concern will persist after stewardship is redefined.
C) Correct Answer. The final paragraph observes that it is “uncertain” whether the new, collaborative idea of stewardship will reconcile “the competing claims of universality and restitution.” In other words, even with redefined stewardship, museums must still find a balance between global access and the rights of source communities. This balancing act remains the likely ongoing challenge.
D) Incorrect. Preserving cultural context is presented as a reason for repatriation, but the author does not imply that this issue survives once stewardship becomes collaborative. The challenge highlighted is broader: resolving universality versus restitution.
E) Incorrect. The passage rejects a blanket return of all artifacts, describing the emerging approach as collaboration rather than complete restitution. Ensuring every object goes back is not identified as the enduring difficulty.
Answer: C
19 Mar 2026, 03:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
I like the solution - it’s helpful.
