Charleton recently wrote a scathing attack on Winfreed's theory 2 p2 }: T$ A" j; N5 |# r0 K# R
about the origin of portraiture. Charleton would never have felt
6 t" D; u+ E6 ]2 X! K8 Z, Jpersonally threatened by Winfreed's theory unless he believed,
9 {% V4 F) X7 q- Y7 Halbeit subconsciously, that the theory was correct. Since Char-5 i) r% t. r% r, u }( r/ m/ _: R: P6 i
leton is a distinguished art historian, his attack can actually be
0 A; A$ N5 w2 dtaken as confirmation of Winfreed's theory.5 Y! y: ~8 D) j3 b. D
" R( L8 L% k, W0 tWhich of the following is an assumption on which the argument
0 b. d! B" |! l5 U' L0 ^depends?. C# z u3 _# @! c: r" b1 P2 `0 |# I
" k: N. i8 _. ?. f Charleton would not have written a scathing attack on Win-
4 f: V, w+ B7 w/ W9 Q* a freed's theory unless he had felt personally threatened by
0 E/ x0 I. h4 t6 {; V that theory.
1 E9 g, g: g: E/ l& G8 x+ e; F: \ Charleton would attack a theory he believed was correct only
: e6 m/ ~$ r5 C if he did not consciously believe that it was correct.
; X+ J; r! J' t7 K Charleton would write about Winfreed's theory only if his7 c7 U6 I; Q% b5 k5 {
explicit purpose was to attack that theory. 6 K% \9 o! J% ^, _2 D& ]& q. A* e& ?
An attack on a theory about the origin of portraiture would
6 I. i# Y- [. `3 \* s4 ]& t serve as confirmation of that theory only if the attack were7 \ L* z; ?+ `2 q7 F1 ^! `# j) B$ |
written by a distinguished art historian.
- F* p4 i: h0 g; j: g( n- t Charleton's attack on Winfreed's theory would serve to con-
: W; G9 d. z, L9 Z: i5 E$ ~+ V firm that theory only if the attack were scathing.
. Q/ N& N& n! ^6 p答案A |