The Argument:Research says oil paint is UNAFFECTED by fluctuations → Relax standards → Save money → Paintings NOT endangered
Correct Answer: DResearch only mentions "oil paint." But paintings have OTHER materials - canvas, wood, varnish, glue.
D fills this gap: Those other materials won't be damaged by fluctuations either.
Your Confusion with B:Your negation: "Under current standards, paintings DO deteriorate"
Your thinking: If they deteriorate now, relaxing standards = worse. Conclusion fails!
Where Your Logic Goes Off Track:The conclusion is NOT: "Paintings won't deteriorate at all"
The conclusion IS:"Relaxing standards won't ENDANGER them"
Paintings can deteriorate from
many causes:
- Age
- Light exposure
- Chemical breakdown over centuries
The argument is ONLY about whether fluctuations in temp/humidity cause damage.
Simple Example:You're 80 years old. Your body deteriorates due to age. That's happening no matter what.
Doctor says: "Eating spicy food won't harm you."
Conclusion: "You can eat spicy food safely."
Does "your body is deteriorating from age" destroy this conclusion?
No! Because the deterioration isn't FROM spicy food.
Same here.
Even if paintings slowly deteriorate from age, the research says
fluctuations don't cause damage. So relaxing fluctuation controls won't make things worse.
ravi1522
Hello ,
I got the answer correct but still not able to eliminate B for correct reason
if we negation option B
Under the current standards that museums use when storing Renaissance oil paintings, those paintings do deteriorate at all.
Then even in my current standards it is detoriating the if i relax the standard my painting will further detoriate then does it not make my concluion fall part ?
Can anybody help me this ??