DISCUSSION: The author mentions perfume recipes in paragraph 3. The recipes are very complex. Presumably, once a perfume is a masterpiece, the recipe shouldn’t be altered. That would be as bad as editing one of Michelangelo’s paintings to suit modern styles.
The author mentions perfume modification, negatively, in paragraph 4. Perfume manufacturers have changed many classic recipes for the worse.
While the author wouldn’t want an original recipe change, he might accept a modification that brought one of those classic perfumes back to its original perfection.
- Don’t be fooled. The author likes Joy Parfum, but that doesn’t mean that all perfume recipes would be improved by changing them to resemble Joy Parfum.
That would be like modifying Picasso’s paintings to make them look like Da Vinci’s. A bad idea.
- The author dislikes modifications that get rid of costly but essential ingredients. See paragraph 4.
- This sounds tempting, but the author doesn’t think that perfumes should be all natural. Lines 17-18 show that good perfumes should have some synthetic ingredients.
- The author is interested in great art. Great art isn’t necessarily popular. Art criticism is an elite activity and doesn’t base itself on popular appeal.
- CORRECT. This fits with paragraph 4. The authors disapproves of the way that corporations modified classic perfumes by using cheaper ingredients. So the author is likely to approve of any modification that reverses those changes.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions