Solution
From passage: "Critics say the collaboration could be an attempt by a large corporation to wrap itself in the sheen of culture."
The key insight -> companies defend their actions, they don't openly admit to manipulative motives. Let us trace through what each side says:
What companies claim:
- Making information available and useful
- Working closely with authorities
- Training local people to help
- Preventing inappropriate use through copyrights
What critics claim:
- It's about wrapping themselves in cultural prestige
- It's just promotion and driving traffic
- It's "digital colonialism"
š¢ Option 1 -> companies would definitely say this -> Google specifically mentions not making money and providing free access
š¢ Option 2 -> companies would definitely say this -> accessibility is a main selling point for digital preservation
š“ Option 3 -> sounds like a critic's accusation -> no company would openly admit to "projecting itself as protector" - this sounds manipulative and fake
š¢ Option 4 -> companies would definitely say this -> preservation after disasters like Palmyra and Bagan is their main justification
The confusion here might be -> "But don't they actually want to be seen as culture protectors?"
Yes, but they wouldn't phrase it that way. They'd say "we preserve culture" not "we project ourselves as protectors." Option 3 uses language that exposes the motive rather than defending it.
š“ Option 3 is correct -> uses accusatory language that companies wouldn't use about themselves
More from this set:
Question 11
Question 12