Curator: Since ancient times, the

Answer choices

1. A

   Unsupported Comparison1% picked this

   The fine arts would be more highly developed now if they had been given greater governmental

   The author hasn't said anything about a hypothetical world in which the arts were given greater subsidies, so we have no idea if he would expect that to result in more developed arts.

   1%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match9% picked this

   If contemporary governments help to maintain and enrich the fine arts, private support for the

   SInce this answer is conditional, we can diagram it and check whether it matches a reasoning move the author made. contemporary private support governments ? will be help to maintain unnecessary and enrich the arts No that doesn't match. The right side definitely doesn't resemble the conclusion. The left side actually resembles the conclusion, and we never want to see the conclusion on the left side. Our argument core looked like this: need to subsidize art and contemporary religious groups / ? governments aristocrats not must help to an option maintain & enrich

   9%
3. C

   Out of Scope: willingness18% picked this

   In contemporary societies, aristocracies and religious institutions are not willing to help finance

   The author isn't rejecting the idea of getting subsidy money from aristocracies and religious groups because he thinks they're unwilling to give money. (We don't know whether he thinks they are / aren't willing). He seems to just be saying, "That would be a bad look, for a modern society to still rely on the church and the super rich to fund our artists. We've moved beyond that unseemly period of history when the church and the elites ran the show."

   18%
4. D

   Correct64% picked this

   Serving as stewards of cultural heritage requires that contemporary societies help to maintain

   Why this is right

   Since this answer is conditional, we can diagram it and check whether it matches a reasoning move the author made. serving as stewards help to maintain cultural heritage ? the fine arts Does that match? Sure, I guess. The author's premise is that contemporary societies have an obligation to serve as stewards of cultural heritage. The conclusion includes the idea that governments will need to help finance the maintenance of the fine arts today. So the argument does move from "if you're serving as steward of cultural heritage, then something is going to need to finance the maintenance of the fine arts". If we negated this, we'd get a decent objection: "Yo, author -- yes, we should be good stewards of cultural heritage, but that doesn't mean we need to help to maintain the fine arts. (Maybe the arts are actually doing fine on their own. The artists in ancient times wouldn't have survived without their subsidies, but maybe the artists nowadays are finding ways to make money and support themselves.)" If you're wondering, "Why does this answer just refer to a subset of the Conclusion?", the answer is No good reason. The test writers probably chose to write it this way so that it would be a weirder, trickier correct answer. We shouldn't blame ourselves for having not predicted this exact link.

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

   64%
5. E

   Too Strong: any / require9% picked this

   Maintenance, advancement, and enrichment of the fine arts in any era

   This actually kind of contradicts the passage. In ancient times, the fine arts didn't require governmental subsidies. The artists got subsidies from rich aristocrats and from church institutions. Even without that apparent contradiction, we wouldn't be able to accuse the author of assuming that in every single era, the fine arts require governmental subsidies. The author is only claiming/assuming that in this contemporary era. the fine arts require some form of subsidy (which he ultimately concludes will have to come from the government).

   9%