PrepTest 116, Section 3, Question 5

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  Being a copy doesn't tell us what experience the painting gives its audience. A viewer might find the copy stimulating, or might not. The critic hasn't made originality a requirement for aesthetic value, so we can't call the painting deficient just because an earlier painting exists.

• B

  Competent performance is the reason offered for calling the symphony beautiful, even though it does not excite the audience. That puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Technical competence by itself doesn't establish the stimulating audience experience the critic values.

  We don't need to eliminate B merely because it uses 'beautiful' instead of 'aesthetically valuable.' Even if we allow that connection, B still hasn't justified its judgment by the critic's stated standard. Its evidence about the audience points away from the justification we would expect.

• C

  The material is rare. Does that make the experience stimulating? We aren't told. Rarity might make an object expensive or interesting to a collector, but neither result is established here, and rarity itself isn't the critic's criterion. We'd need the missing connection to the audience's experience before using this reason to praise the sculpture.

• D

  A controversial artist might get people talking, but that doesn't establish what experiencing this particular painting is like. The judgment needs to be grounded in the work's effect on the audience. Who painted it isn't enough by itself, however much attention that person receives.

• E
  Correct

  The poem has little impact on its audience, and the judgment uses that lack of impact to explain why it is aesthetically deficient. That is the connection the principle directs us to make: assess the work's value through the experience it provides. E doesn't switch to the work's age, rarity, creator, or technical execution.