The Correct Answer and Explanation is:
The correct choice is B) is not conclusive evidence that the figure is Venus.
The provided text presents a classic case of interpreting archaeological evidence where a single symbol might have multiple meanings. The core of the argument revolves around the presence of a cupid near a female figure in a piece of Roman art. To determine the most logical conclusion, we must analyze the two competing ideas presented in the passage.
The first idea is the commonly held belief that cupids are associated with the goddess Venus in Roman culture. Based on this link alone, one might quickly identify the female figure as Venus. However, the text introduces a crucial counterpoint from archaeologist Carla Brain. She suggests that cupids may have also had a broader association with the theme of fishing, separate from their connection to Venus.
This new information fundamentally changes the interpretation. The cupid is no longer a definitive marker for Venus. Instead, its presence is now ambiguous. It could signify that the figure is Venus, or it could simply be a decorative element related to a general fishing scene. Because two plausible explanations exist for the cupid’s inclusion in the artwork, its presence cannot definitively or conclusively prove the figure’s identity.
Therefore, the most logical completion of the sentence is that the fact a cupid is shown near the figure is not conclusive evidence that the figure is Venus. This choice perfectly captures the uncertainty introduced by Carla Brain’s research. Option A is incorrect because the Venus connection is still a possibility. Option C is wrong because the text provides an alternative way to account for the cupid, and Option D makes an unsupported leap by directly linking Venus to fishing, a connection the text does not make.
