The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
In 2006, the Met [art museum in the US] agreed to return the Euphronios krater, a masterpiece Greek urn that had been a museum draw since 1972. In 2007, the Getty [art museum in the US] agreed to return 40 objects to Italy, including a marble Aphrodite, in the midst of looting scandals. And in December, Sotheby's and a private owner agreed to return an ancient Khmer statue of a warrior, pulled from auction two years before, to Cambodia.
Cultural property, or patrimony, laws limit the transfer of cultural property outside the source country's territory, including outright export prohibitions and national ownership laws. Most art historians, archaeologists, museum officials and policymakers portray cultural property laws in general as invaluable tools for counteracting the ugly legacy of Western cultural imperialism.
During the late 19th and early 20th century - an era former Met director Thomas Hoving called "the age of piracy" - American and European art museums acquired antiquities by hook or by crook, from grave robbers or souvenir collectors, bounty from digs and ancient sites in impoverished but art-rich source countries. Patrimony laws were intended to protect future archaeological discoveries against Western imperialist designs. ...
I surveyed 90 countries with one or more archaeological sites on UNESCO's World Heritage Site list, and my study shows that in most cases the number of discovered sites diminishes sharply after a country passes a cultural property law. There are 222 archaeological sites listed for those 90 countries. When you look into the history of the sites, you see that all but 21 were discovered before the passage of cultural property laws. ...
Strict cultural patrimony laws are popular in most countries. But the downside may be that they reduce incentives for foreign governments, nongovernmental organizations and educational institutions to invest in overseas exploration because their efforts will not necessarily be rewarded by opportunities to hold, display and study what is uncovered. To the extent that source countries can fund their own archaeological projects, artifacts and sites may still be discovered. . . . The survey has far-reaching implications. It suggests that source countries, particularly in the developing world, should narrow their cultural property laws so that they can reap the benefits of new archaeological discoveries, which typically increase tourism and enhance cultural pride. This does not mean these nations should abolish restrictions on foreign excavation and foreign claims to artifacts.
China provides an interesting alternative approach for source nations eager for foreign archaeological investment. From 1935 to 2003, China had a restrictive cultural property law that prohibited foreign ownership of Chinese cultural artifacts. In those years, China's most significant archaeological discovery occurred by chance, in 1974, when peasant farmers accidentally uncovered ranks of buried terra cotta warriors, which are part of Emperor Qin's spectacular tomb system.
In 2003, the Chinese government switched course, dropping its cultural property law and embracing collaborative international archaeological research. Since then, China has nominated 11 archaeological sites for inclusion in the World Heritage Site list, including eight in 2013, the most ever for China.
Which one of the following statements, if true, would undermine the central idea of the passage?
Correct Answer :
UNESCO finances archaeological research in poor, but archaeologically-rich source countries.
Solution :
To determine which statement undermines the central idea of the passage, let us first identify that central idea:
The passage argues that strict cultural property (patrimony) laws reduce the incentives for foreign entities (governments, NGOs, educational institutions) to invest in archaeological exploration in source countries, because they cannot keep, display, or study what they find. The author supports this by showing that the discovery of new sites drops dramatically after such laws are passed. The passage suggests that unless source countries can fund their own excavations, artifacts will remain undiscovered. Hence, the author recommends narrowing these laws to allow collaborative foreign investment and shared access, using China's post-2003 collaborative model as a successful example.
Now, let us analyze the options:
1. "Museums established in economically deprived archaeologically-rich source countries can display the antiques discovered there."
This statement does not address how the excavation or exploration is funded or incentivized. It only concerns display locations and does not counter the argument that strict laws stop discoveries from happening in the first place.
2. "Affluent archaeologically-rich source countries can afford to carry out their own excavations."
This actually aligns with the passage, which explicitly states: "To the extent that source countries can fund their own archaeological projects, artifacts and sites may still be discovered." Thus, it does not undermine the author's logic.
3. "Western countries will have to apologise to countries for looting their cultural property in the past century."
This is an ethical or political action related to the "ugly legacy of Western cultural imperialism," but it does not impact the scientific and financial incentives for future archaeological discoveries discussed by the author.
4. "UNESCO finances archaeological research in poor, but archaeologically-rich source countries."
The author's core warning is that strict patrimony laws stop discoveries in poor source countries because these countries cannot fund excavations themselves, and foreign entities lack the incentive to do so. If an international body like UNESCO finances archaeological research in these poor countries regardless of local ownership laws or Western display incentives, then new discoveries can continue to be made without needing to weaken or narrow cultural property protection laws. This directly weakens the author's claim that strict laws inevitably lead to a decline in discoveries due to a lack of funding/incentives.
Therefore, the statement that undermines the central idea of the passage is: UNESCO finances archaeological research in poor, but archaeologically-rich source countries.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
