This true story seems like a modern-day fairytale: a man pursues his dream through adversity and in the end, he triumphs over the difficulties - they all live happily ever after, right? Well, not exactly. Archaeologists object to the fact that with commercial salvaging operations like Fisher’s, the objects are sold and dispersed and UNESCO are worried about protecting our underwater heritage from what it describes as “pillaging”.
The counter-argument is that in professional, well-run operations such as Fisher’s, each piece is accurately and minutely recorded and that it is this information which is more important than the actual object, and that such operations help increase our wealth of archaeological knowledge. Indeed, as in Fisher’s case, they make history more accessible to people through museum donations and information on web sites.
There are four suggested answers.
A. UNESCO's view is different from archaeologists'
B. all salvaging operations should be prohibited
C. attention should be paid to the find's educational value
D. people hold entirely different views on the issue
The true answer is D， but I think it's too absolute and assertive, since the definition of people is not clarified in the text. As for A, I chose this answer in the first place, because I thought that despite the fact that both archaeologists and UNESCO disapprove of commercial salvaging operations, at least they have different reasons for it. Are the stance and the view expressing the same meaning in English? Answer C may be indirect but still more convincing compared with D.
By the way, due to the restrictions on the Internet in my country, I can't find the original text of the two paragraphs I posted above (I can't create a hyperlink of it), which otherwise would be better for you to understand. Are there any suggestions for the circumstance where posting the original article is not available?