We need to find what does NOT result from the Western idea of "unassailable original" in art.

Let us trace through the passage to understand what "unassailable original" means. The passage says this concept developed in Western art history. From passage: "In the field of art as well, the idea of an unassailable original developed historically in the Western world. Back in the 17th century in the West, excavated artworks from antiquity were treated quite differently from today. They were not restored in a way that was faithful to the original. Instead, there was massive intervention in these works, changing their appearance." This tells me -> Before this concept: massive changes to old art -> After this concept: treat originals as untouchable The cathedral example shows -> constant careful repair work -> keeping original stones as long as possible -> replacing only when necessary

Now let's check each option against the "unassailable original" concept: 🟠 Option 1 -> partial-truth -> If originals are sacred, then displaying multiple copies would cheapen the original's value. This makes sense from the concept. 🟠 Option 2 -> logical connection -> The passage shows 17th century had "massive intervention" but now we avoid changes to preserve originality. This directly follows from the concept. 🟠 Option 3 -> direct example -> Cathedral workers constantly replace damaged stones to preserve the structure. This careful maintenance work comes from respecting the original. 🟢 Option 4 -> context-shift -> The cloning discussion is about religious beliefs (Buddhist vs Christian views), not about art restoration concepts. The passage says "It is probably this intellectual position that explains why Asians have far fewer scruples about cloning than Europeans" but connects it to Buddhist reincarnation beliefs, not art theory. The cloning opposition comes from Christian religious views -> not from art preservation ideas -> completely different topic

CAT (VARC) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts