#25 - During the nineteenth century, the French academy of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Question #25: Resolve. The correct answer choice is (C).

The stimulus describes an apparent discrepancy. The French academy discouraged innovation in the arts during the 19th century, and yet 19th century French painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation (unlike sculpture, which did not). The question is why? We can only speculate as to the reasons, but the correct answer choice will need to point to a critical difference between French painting and sculpture in the 19th century. Maybe painting as an art form wasn't as important to the academy, and they didn't sponsor it to the same extent as sculpture.

Answer choice (A) is the Opposite answer. If painting received more financial support than sculpture, we'd expect it to be less innovative given the artistic direction of the French academy. French painting, however, was apparently more innovative. Answer choice (A) deepens the paradox instead of resolving it.

Answer choice (B) is another an Opposite answer. The fact that more sculptors than painters were supported helps explain (to an extent) why sculpture was less innovative, assuming that each artist received a more-or-less equal share of this support. However, the second part of answer choice (B) states that individual painters received more support, on average, than individual sculptors. If so, we'd expect that that painting would be less innovative, not more.

Answer choice (C) is the correct answer choice. If there were a lot more unsponsored paintings than unsponsored sculptures, then no wonder 19th century painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation: more paintings than sculptures were produced without the auspices of the academy, which limited innovation.

Answer choice (D) is incorrect as it has no effect on the discrepancy we're trying to explain.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect, because the total amount of support received by the artistic community is irrelevant. Our job is to explain why painting was more innovative than sculpture, even though they are both art forms sponsored by the French academy. The correct answer choice must point to a material difference, not similarity, between these two art forms.

[Mark83]

Hi there,

I got the correct answer (C), but you actually have answer (A) and the conclusion reversed, which is why I also considered (A) initially.

The conclusion in the stimulus says that there was "little innovation in nineteenth century French sculpture" compared to art. Not that there was "little innovation in painting."

Unless there is a misprint in my book, answer choice (A) cannot be eliminated as an opposite answer. Since if the "French academy game more of its financial support to painting than it did to sculpture" That would be consistent with the fact that painting showed more innovation than sculpture.

If answer choice (C) which helps explain the discrepancy more was not one of the options I would likely have gone with (A).

Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Just making sure if (A) was really a reverse answer, or if it just wasn't as strong a helper as answer (C).

Thanks

[nicholaspavic]

Hi Mark,

Welcome to the forum!

I am looking at the question online, and see the reference to "little innovation in nineteenth century French sculpture," but it is not "comparing" it to art. Rather "art" is being used as umbrella term here to cover both sculpture and painting. So, I think that our analysis above holds up as Answer Choice (A) being an Opposite Answer and therefore, an incorrect answer.

Perhaps we can clarify it though. "Because the academy discouraged innovation in the arts" applies to BOTH sculpture and painting, not just sculpture. So sculpture does not innovate back then, because of the academy, yet somehow painters are really innovative. That's inconsistent with the French academy trying to shut down their artistic innovation, but what if the academy really didn't spend much money on painting? Well then, if people could still buy paints, canvas and an easel to innovate however they wanted because it wasn't that expensive, then that could explain how the painters still innovated even when the academy didn't want them to. That's why (A) is incorrect. Because if the French academy gave more of its financial support to painting than it did to sculpture, that would actually make it MORE likely that painters would not innovate which is the opposite of what we are looking for in the answer choices.

Thanks for the great question and let us know if this helps!