By examining Watrall's perspectives, it becomes evident that he opposes Google's intentions rather than being against the technology itself. This allows us to eliminate option 2. Additionally, Watrall is not dismissive of laypeople's access to those images; in fact, being dismissive would place him in the wrong.
Now, we have options 3 and 4 to consider. Is Watrall uneasy or outrightly critical? Possibly both. However, Google has not explicitly stated that it will use the images for commercial purposes. Google has emphasized providing free access to the images, and any potential commercial benefits are speculative at this point. Option 4 appears to be the most fitting choice.
We should aim to respond to questions by finding information within the passage. The term 'digital colonization' is introduced in the initial paragraph, where critics inquire about "who should own the copyrights." It is referred to as 'digital colonization.' Therefore, digital colonization indicates that the countries where the scanned sites are situated do not possess the scan copyrights.
Option 4 is another plausible choice, but it would be accurate only if the host countries have ownership of the copyrights. They can grant copyright permission only if they actually own the copyrights.
To accurately address this question, it's crucial to examine Dr. Watrall's argument. In the passage, it is mentioned that "Watrall says these images belong on the site of a museum or educational institution, where there is serious scholarship and a very different mission."
If Option 1 is accurate, it would undeniably contradict Dr. Watrall's objection.
Acquiring copyright technically involves possessing something. In this context, even though the site is situated in one country, the copyrights are held by a different entity, resembling the scenario where Western museums own Egyptian artifacts. It's crucial to note that 'seizing' implies forcefully taking something from someone.
Eliminating Option 1 is appropriate since illegal downloading does not confer ownership.
Similarly, Option 3 is not fitting because providing free access does not equate to granting ownership rights.
Option 4 is also unsuitable as it lacks the proper analogy for the situation at hand.
This question can be addressed by applying common sense and carefully considering the statements made by Google and CyArk in defense of their actions. The appropriate choice would be one that these companies would not use to justify their actions.
Options 1, 2, and 4 offer plausible reasons. However, Option 3 is not a valid reason because it implies an authoritarian attitude on the part of the companies. Someone claiming to be a "protector of culture" could be seen as snobbish, whereas being a promoter of culture is more acceptable. Therefore, Option 3 is the correct choice.
Read the sentence and infer the writer's tone: "The politician's speech was filled with lofty promises and little substance, a performance repeated every election season."