Carolyn: The artist Marc Quinn has displayed, behind a glass plate, biologically replicated fragments of Sir John Sulston’s DNA, calling it a “conceptual portrait” of Sulston. But to be a portrait, something must bear a recognizable resemblance to its subject.
Arnold: I disagree. Quinn’s conceptual portrait is a maximally realistic portrait, for it holds actual instructions according to which Sulston was created.
The dialogue provides most support for the claim that Carolyn and Arnold disagree over whether the object described by Quinn as a conceptual portrait of Sir John Sulston
(A) should be considered to be art
(B) should be considered to be Quinn’s work
(C) bears a recognizable resemblance to Sulston
(D) contains instructions according to which Sulston was created
(E) is actually a portrait of Sulston
A. Incorrect. Carolyn never claimed Quinn didn’t create the work—she only argued it’s not a portrait. So there's no disagreement here.
B. Incorrect. Like A, this misrepresents Carolyn’s position. She never questioned Quinn’s authorship.
C. Incorrect. This is a trap. Mary says the work doesn’t resemble Sulston, but Arnold doesn’t claim it does resemble him. Instead, he redefines what makes something a portrait—namely, having realistic information (DNA). There’s no direct clash on resemblance.
D. Incorrect. Carolyn doesn’t mention DNA at all, and there's no reason to think she'd disagree that DNA contains instructions for making a person. No clear conflict here.
E. Correct. This is the point of disagreement. Arnold claims the work is a portrait, based on his view that the DNA-based piece is maximally realistic. Carolyn, on the other hand, clearly implies it is not a portrait. Their views directly contradict each other here.
