Re: A major art theft from a museum was remarkable in that the pieces stol
[#permalink]
25 Aug 2020, 21:16
(C)
On what does the author base his conclusion that the theft was carried out in order to add to the collection of a private collector? The only evidence available to the author is the selection of art works on the part of the thieves. The author must be relying on the principle described in (C): from the pattern of works taken (in this case, the works had been
“carefully selected,” but not on the basis of monetary worth), it is sometimes possible to distinguish one type of art theft from another (in this case, to perceive that a theft was carried out in order to please an individual collector).
(A) The author inferred that this theft was carried out to suit a private collector. He needn’t assume that whenever an art theft takes place (including thefts where only the most expensive pieces are stolen), he can tell whether one or many “known” individuals “directed” that theft.
(B) The author never claimed that the pattern evidenced by this theft “defied rational analysis;” in fact, since a very definite plan was evidently carried out, the opposite seems to be the case.
(D) Suppose, contrary to (D), that thefts without a preexisting plan for the disposition of the stolen works did uniformly involve the theft of only the most valuable pieces: that wouldn’t at all hurt the author’s argument that the failure to select the most valuable works in the case of this theft shows that there is a preexisting plan to get the works to a private collector. So (D) isn’t appealed to.
(E) The author never even mentions the “integrity” of the remaining collection, so he needn’t appeal to (E).
• The question asks, in effect, for a principle that is assumed by the argument. You can use the Denial Test on the choices, exactly as you do on assumption questions. Deny the “principle”; if the argument still holds, then the principle isn’t assumed or, as they put it here, is not “tacitly appealed to” by the argument. (Conversely, deny correct choice (C) and the argument falls apart.)
• Recognize the limitations of the author’s argument—he’s just saying that, in this particular unusual case, he can infer something about the theft. Avoid choices, like (A) and (B), that use absolute terms like “any” or “every.”