June 2007 PrepTest, Section 2, Question 25
By Brandon Beaver | Published October 29, 2024
Type: Strengthen
Difficulty:
Explanations
Weird, so the academy of art was a major sponsor of painting and sculpture, but the academy discouraged innovation. And, private individuals sponsored the two artforms dramatically less. Consequently, there was little innovation in sculpture. But yet, painting had plenty of innovation. Why?
Maybe private sponsorship decreased entirely for sculpting, but not for painting? Maybe painters just didn’t care what the academy said?
A
This would make it more confusing, because then wouldn’t painters need to conform more to their sponsor’s wishes?
B
Same as A.
C
Ah, that makes sense. Painting is cheaper and didn’t always need sponsors. Sculptors literally couldn’t sculpt without sponsorship, so they needed to bow down to their “academy of art” overlords. Painters sometimes had no such limitation.
D
This does nothing. I already know there’s a difference between the two art forms.
E
This also does nothing to distinguish why only one of the groups showed innovation.
Passage
During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was
Question 25
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain t