A sculpture, allegedly of Roman origin and dated at about the third century A.D., has been placed at an art gallery's disposal off the record. The sculpture seems authentic enough, even though there is no certificate of authenticity available, which could mean that it is a recent discovery or that it comes from a private collection. Nevertheless, a relic of that time period would suffer wear and tear unevenly, while the sculpture's surface has deteriorated in a uniform fashion, which points to the use of artificial aging methods such as an acid bath to fake a naturally eroded exterior. Thus, the sculpture is probably an artful deceit.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
-
radio_button_uncheckedArt galleries have the right to take in newly discovered antiques only with certificates of authenticity proving the source of origin.
-
radio_button_uncheckedThe posture of the subject and the way in which other traits of the subject are depicted are all typical of Roman sculptures of the third century A.D.
-
radio_button_uncheckedThe method of artificial aging used by forgers was once popular among collectors and dealers alike who utilized it to get rid of large stains on the surface of original antique sculptures.
-
radio_button_uncheckedArt gallery experts are convinced that forgers are not capable of accurately reproducing the spotty effect of weathering on the surface of an antique sculpture.
-
radio_button_uncheckedA sculpture presumed to be of Greek origin with what appeared to be an evenly weathered surface, much like that on the sculpture that is now in the art gallery's possession, has been proven to be a fake.
star_border
keyboard_arrow_left 이전