Critic: In her presentation of important

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: should not prefer2% picked this

   Waverly believes that a historian of art should not prefer certain works of art to

   Waverly wasn't putting out any normative statements about historians of art. She just claimed that in her art history textbook, she would be presenting objective accounts. She never said that others should be following in her footsteps. Also, there's a big difference between saying "I will present only objective accounts in my book" and saying "I don't prefer any works of art to other works of art". We can have our own preferences but still choose to write a book from an objective point of view.

   2%
2. B

   Too Strong: only5% picked this

   Waverly has only included works of art that she has strong opinions about

   This feels almost more like the opposite of what's going on. Waverly is trying to write an objective book in which she neither advocates nor denigrates, so it would be contrary to her goals if she only included works for which she had strong opinions. In fact, the last claim makes it sound like Waverly has discussed some art she likes in the book and some art to which she is indifferent in the book, so that latter fact would actually contradict this notion that all the art that got included in the book is stuff she has strong opinions about.

   5%
3. C

   Opposite, if anything7% picked this

   Waverly wrote her textbook with the intention of advocating the works of art that

   Waverly said the exact opposite of this. She sought not to advocate nor to denigrate. This critic is saying, "Well, she failed to stay objective. You can tell from the quality of her writing whether she likes certain art or is indifferent to it." But this answer accuses the critic of saying, "Waverly was lying to us when she said she was trying to write objectively! In reality, she had the intention to advocate but dishonestly lied in the preface to her book." The critic sounded more like he was saying, "Despite her efforts to stay objective, you can still hear her subjectivity peeking through".

   7%
4. D

   Correct84% picked this

   Waverly has not succeeded in her intended objectivity about works of art discussed

   Why this is right

   This is basically just what the last sentence says: A pretense of objectivity never succeeds. Waverly had a pretense of objectivity. She declared her intention, her pretense, to be objective. The critic says this never succeeds, so of course 'never' includes Waverly's attempt. And the critic even offers an illustration of Waverly's failure to remain objective: she writes better about art she likes than about art to which she's indifferent.

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

   84%
5. E

   Too Strong: doesn't really believe2% picked this

   Waverly does not really believe that objectivity is a desirable trait in an

   This is very similar to (C). It attributes Waverly's failure to remain objective to some underhanded dishonesty she has. The text was saying that "Despite Waverly's hopes to remain objective, she failed. You could still hear her subjectivity coming through." But the critic could be saying that Waverly failed to stay objective by accident, despite her earnest hopes to stay objective. The critic doesn't make it seem like Waverly was lying, and doesn't really believe objectivity is a worthy goal.

   2%