contestada

Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species: a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area.
B. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics native
C. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city
D. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representation of known species
E. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman empire were familiar

Respuesta :

abdullahfarooqi

Answer:

e. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman empire were familiar

Explanation:

Reverse this assumption: let's say there was a common repertory of mosaic designs.

in this case, that repertory - since it was a common repertory - would have included animal figures from all over the place. (at the very least, it would be quite unreasonable to expect a common repertory to have been restricted to animal figures from the sepphoris area in particular.)

this destroys the argument, because, were there such a repertory, then artists local to sepphoris would have followed it as well, creating the exotic designs despite their status as natives in the area. So, e part is correct.

Otras preguntas