PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 25
During the nineteenth century, the French academy of(50 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(28 more words not shown)
- AIn France in(19 more words not shown)
- BThe French academy(24 more words not shown)
- CBecause stone was(24 more words not shown)
- DVery few of(14 more words not shown)
- EAlthough the academy(27 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why was painting so much more innovative than sculpture? The same academy sponsored both arts and discouraged innovation in both. That shared pressure helps explain why artists might stick with familiar work, but it doesn't explain the difference between the two arts.
I'd look for some way painters could escape that pressure. The academy was a major sponsor, not necessarily the only one. Private sponsorship had fallen dramatically, but “fallen” doesn't mean “disappeared.” Maybe painters still had other funding available even if sculptors didn't.
Or maybe painters didn't need as much financial backing in the first place. If an artist can afford to make the work without a sponsor, the sponsor has less control over what gets made. That could leave painters freer to experiment while sculptors depend more heavily on the academy.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to explain the difference in innovation. So I want a difference between painting and sculpture that makes their different outcomes understandable. Another fact applying equally to both won't do that work.
Working the answers
- A
More academy money went to painting. But the academy is the sponsor that discourages innovation. This doesn't show how painters could work independently of its preferences. If anything, more involvement from that restrictive sponsor makes the painters' greater innovation harder to explain, rather than supplying the missing freedom.
- B
A greater number of sculptors received academy support, and each supported painter received more money on average. Those figures don't tell us how dependent either art was on the academy. We don't know how many painters or sculptors worked outside its sponsorship, or how much funding they needed.
The fact we want is a reason painters could innovate despite the academy's preferences. Counts of sponsored artists and average awards don't establish that independence.
- CCorrect
Stone was much more expensive than paint and canvas, so far more paintings than sculptures were made without sponsorship. That gives painters a route around the academy's restrictions: they could produce work without needing its financial approval.
A sculptor needing expensive material would have a harder time proceeding without funding. So an academy that discourages innovation can have a stronger limiting effect on sculpture, while painters working on their own remain free to experiment. C connects the different costs to the different opportunities for innovation. It doesn't require paintings to cost nothing—just to be much more feasible without a sponsor.
- D
Knowing few artists worked in both media doesn't explain why painters could innovate more. Separate groups could be equally dependent on a restrictive sponsor. We still need a difference that affects their ability to experiment.
- E
A decline in total sponsorship affects the overall funding picture for both arts. By itself, it doesn't tell us why painting remained innovative while sculpture did not. Pair it with a difference in costs, as C does, and we could explain unequal effects. E alone doesn't give us that difference.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.