G: The group of works

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact2% picked this

   If an artist has had one of his or her works exhibited in the Metropolitan Art Show, that artist has an advantage in getting

   This answer discusses how having exhibited works at the show provides a future advantage for artists. However, it has nothing to do with solving the causal mystery of why more photographs were exhibited this year.

   2%
2. B

   Correct68% picked this

   The fee for entering photographs in the Metropolitan Art Show was $25 per work submitted, while the fee for each painting

   Why this is right

   If the fee for entering photographs was only $25 compared to $75 for other media, more photographers might have been economically incentivized to submit their work. This financial disparity could lead to a predisposition toward having more photographs exhibited, indicating biased favoring toward photographers. This is a weird answer because in a sense it sounds like an alternate explanation for the lopsided exhibition numbers (there weren't more photography exhibits because they're biased in favor of photography, but just because there were more submissions in that category). However, if the reason there are more submissions is because the entry fee was 1/3 as expensive, then that DOES still seem like a bias in favor of photography.

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

   68%
3. C

   Opposite Impact2% picked this

   The committee that selected from the submitted works the ones to be exhibited in this year’s Metropolitan Art Show had four members: one photographer,

   The equal representation of the selection committee would actually undermine the idea of bias.

   2%
4. D

   No Impact19% picked this

   Reviews of this year’s Metropolitan Art Show that appeared in major newspapers and magazines tended to give more coverage to the photographs in the

   While media reviews may focus more on photographs, this relates to attention post-exhibition, not a cause or evidence of bias in the exhibition process itself. It doesn't demonstrate how bias affected the selection of works to be exhibited. Maybe someone would try to argue, "it shows that OTHER people are also biased towards photography, which supports the plausibility of the author's story". But the paper might just be giving more coverage to photographs because there were more photographs in the show!

   19%
5. E

   Opposite Impact9% picked this

   In previous years, it has often happened that more paintings or more sculptures were exhibited in the Metropolitan Art Show than photographs, even though

   This makes it seem like there's no real bias at play; there's just some variance that equals out in the long run. Sometimes paintings are most common, sometimes sculptures, sometimes photos. This just happened to be a photo year.

   9%