PrepTest 155, Section 2, Question 25

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  The installation is already pleasing, and viewers don't realize that the panels differ from what the artist intended. The principle concerns their impression, so this hidden failure doesn't itself give us a reason to rearrange the panels. Actual conformity to the artist's wishes isn't the standard the critic supplies. We would need to know what the rearrangement does to the impression.

• B

  This starts with lower aesthetic appeal and concludes that the artist probably failed to achieve the actual intended arrangement. The principle goes from the impression of success to a tendency toward appeal. It doesn't let us use a comparison of appeal to determine what the artist really wanted or whether that intention was fulfilled.

• C

  This tries to infer an impression of failure from an almost-symmetrical arrangement. But the critic doesn't tell us which visual features create which impressions. C stops before making any conclusion about aesthetic appeal, which is the connection the principle provides. We would need a further premise to establish what the near-symmetry makes viewers think.

• D
  Correct

  Greater symmetry would make it seem more as though the artist got the panels arranged as she wanted. That supplies the stronger impression of success described in the principle. The conclusion that the installation would therefore become more aesthetically pleasing follows the critic's reasoning. Symmetry isn't automatically good under this rule; it matters here because of the impression it would create.

• E

  Looking less fully planned isn't the same as looking more successful at the artist's aim. Perhaps an artist wants a spontaneous appearance, or perhaps not. E doesn't make that connection. The critic gives no rule that reduced symmetry or less apparent planning makes an arrangement more pleasing; the relevant question remains whether the result seems to accomplish the artist's goal.