Art historian: Great works of

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: most7% picked this

   Most art is

   The author states that art is often shocking, but that doesn't mean most art is shocking. Baseball pitchers are often left-handed, but that doesn't mean more than 50% of pitchers are left-handed.

   7%
2. B

   Out of Scope: received public funding19% picked this

   Stravinsky and Manet received public funding for

   The author is insinuating that Stravinksy's and Manet's great art was worthy of public funding, but she isn't committed to the idea that they actually received public funding. If we negated this answer and said, "S and M did not receive public funding for their art", it wouldn't hurt the argument. The author is merely saying, "We love this art from S and M, even though it was shocking to many when it came out. Thus, we should be fine using public funds to support art that many find shocking (the implication is that our public funding might help support the next Stravinsky or Manet).

   19%
3. C

   Unsupported Comparison1% picked this

   Art used to be more shocking than it

   Unsupported Comparison: more shocking Relative vs. Absolute It's always a big red flag when we notice a shift between Absolute language (art is often "shocking") and Relative (yesterday's art was "more shocking" than today's). The author didn't need to assume that art is getting less shocking over time. She seems to be saying, timelessly, that art is often shocking, and so we shouldn't be shy about using public funds to support art that many find shocking.

   1%
4. D

   Correct70% picked this

   Public funds should support

   Why this is right

   This answer does address the New Concept in the Conclusion, "should use public funds to support". Was the author thinking that we should use public funds to support art? Yeah, sure, I mean, the author is literally concluding that we should use public funds to support works of art that many people find shocking. So implicit in that idea is that we should use public funds to support (at least some kinds of) art. If we negate this answer, does it weaken? Yes, it definitely hurts the author's argument for us to say, "Hey, author -- we should not use public funds to support art, at all!" If you're thinking to yourself, "Isn't this 'assumption' really just a subset of the conclusion, and not actually related to the premise / reasoning?" Yes! This is a very, very weird correct answer. It's hard to think of any other correct answers on Necessary Assumption that fee like this. Probably, the test writers wanted us to be reacting to the author's argument, which was that we shouldn't be shy about using public funds to support shocking art, with the potential objection of, "Wait a sec -- who said we should be supporting any art with public funds?"

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   70%
5. E

   Too Strong: all shocking things3% picked this

   Anything that shocks is

   The author definitely doesn't have to believe the crazy sounding claim that "every single thing that shocks is art". A brutal murder is art? A war crime is art? An open electrical wire is art? The author just said that art is often shocking, which is nowhere near saying "everything that shocks is art".

   3%