PrepTest 109, Section 1, Question 10
Art historian: Great works of art have often(51 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(18 more words not shown)
- AMost art is(1 more words not shown)
- BStravinsky and Manet(6 more words not shown)
- CArt used to(7 more words not shown)
- DPublic funds should(2 more words not shown)
- EAnything that shocks(2 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why should public money pay for it?
The examples show that a great work can shock people when it first appears. Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and Manet's Déjeuner sur l'herbe elicited strong reactions. That can give us a reason not to dismiss art merely because people find it shocking. But it doesn't, by itself, establish who should fund the art.
Imagine saying that my social-media posts sometimes shock people, so public funds should support them. The reaction to the posts wouldn't settle the funding question. Likewise, someone could appreciate challenging art while thinking its costs should be covered privately. The historian needs a position on public support, not just a description of how audiences sometimes react.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for an assumption the argument requires. The conclusion tells us not to hesitate to use public funds for shocking art. Then the author must at least accept that public funds should support art. Otherwise, there would be an objection to paying for it before we even got to whether it shocks anyone.
Working the answers
- A
“Often” doesn't establish that more than half of all art is shocking. More importantly, the recommendation doesn't require that majority claim. The historian could recommend public support for shocking works even if they represented only a minority of art.
- B
These artists are examples of great art provoking outrage, not examples of how art should be financed. They could have received no public funding at all, and the historian could still make the present argument. Whether their own work was publicly funded is not a required assumption.
- C
The argument doesn't compare how shocking art used to be with how shocking it is now. Historical examples show that outrage has occurred, but no trend is needed to make the recommendation. Art could be more, less, or equally shocking today without resolving the funding question.
- DCorrect
Recommending public support for a kind of art requires accepting public support for art in the first place. If public funds should never support art, the recommendation to use those funds for shocking works cannot stand.
D is deliberately broader than the particular works discussed. It doesn't say every artwork deserves funding or that shock alone makes a work worth funding. It supplies the basic commitment to public support that the author's recommendation needs.
- E
Art can shock people without everything shocking being art. An upsetting event or an alarming announcement could shock someone too. The historian doesn't need to classify all of those things as art, and doing so wouldn't establish that public money should support them.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.