For a main-idea question, identify the established interpretation, the evidence that complicates it, and any qualification the author preserves. Choose the option that reflects all three without making an unsupported claim about exactly what happened or using absolute language that goes beyond the passage.
Hints
- Hint 1
Identify the challenged assumption
Determine what conclusion scholars have traditionally drawn from the transitions between blue and green.
- Hint 2
Separate the findings
Consider what the pigment analysis, the pattern of moisture exposure, and the workshop accounts each establish.
- Hint 3
Notice the final qualification
The records confirm that retouching occurred but leave an important question about that retouching unanswered.
Step-by-step
- Step 1
Identify the traditional interpretation
Scholars have often interpreted transitions from blue to green as evidence that later painters repaired parts of the manuscript with a different pigment.
- Step 2
Consider the new evidence
Okafor found that the original workshop used both lapis and azurite. She also found that exposed azurite turned green while protected azurite remained blue, showing that aging conditions could create color differences.
- Step 3
Account for the qualification
Records confirm that later retouching occurred, but they do not identify the altered passages. Thus, the text does not deny retouching; it shows why color transitions are insufficient to locate it, as stated in choice B.