Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 16:07 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 16:07

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 356
Own Kudos [?]: 925 [28]
Given Kudos: 47
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.88
WE:Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63649 [14]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 14 Dec 2016
Status:Searching for something I've been searching..LOL
Posts: 46
Own Kudos [?]: 93 [6]
Given Kudos: 158
Location: India
Concentration: Healthcare, Operations
Schools: Ross '20
GMAT 1: 590 Q35 V42
GPA: 3.5
WE:Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
AGSM Thread Master
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 115
Own Kudos [?]: 713 [1]
Given Kudos: 30
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
1
Kudos
IMO C.

C provides reasons for both the events. Material for Sculpture was expensive, making it difficult for artists to produce without funding while material for painting was not expensive, making it easier for painters to produce painting without funding.
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Status:Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Posts: 734
Own Kudos [?]: 1857 [0]
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE:Engineering (Transportation)
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
It took 2 min 15 sec fairly simple.... its straight C
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Jun 2017
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 8
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
kill3rlook5 wrote:
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 but sculpturing did not.
The question is why?
We can only guess at the reasons.
However the correct answer choice should be the one which would point to a critical difference between French painting and sculpture in the 19th century.

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.
if painting was supported more financially wouldn't it be more innovative?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Mar 2015
Status:love the club...
Posts: 220
Own Kudos [?]: 112 [0]
Given Kudos: 527
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
Dear Expert

I am okay with C, but
What is wrong with A and B, specifically, why should we discard them ...?
France academy discourages innovation in arts, but if this is true that individual painters receive more financial incentives than do individual sculptors, then cannot be those incentives the reasons for innovations in painting....?

Yes, choice C comes up with a splendid option, no doubt out there, but
how to eliminate A and B ...?

maybe it is very obvious, but
Please say to me

thanks in advance
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Mar 2015
Status:love the club...
Posts: 220
Own Kudos [?]: 112 [1]
Given Kudos: 527
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
1
Kudos
GMATNinja wrote:
gmatcracker2017 wrote:
Dear Expert

I am okay with C, but
What is wrong with A and B, specifically, why should we discard them ...?
France academy discourages innovation in arts, but if this is true that individual painters receive more financial incentives than do individual sculptors, then cannot be those incentives the reasons for innovations in painting....?

Yes, choice C comes up with a splendid option, no doubt out there, but
how to eliminate A and B ...?

maybe it is very obvious, but
Please say to me

thanks in advance

Quote:
(A) In France in the nineteenth century, the French academy gave more of its financial support to painting than it did to sculpture.

We know that the French academy of art was a major financial sponsor of BOTH painting and sculpture in France. Regardless of whether painting or sculpture received MORE of the money, the academy discouraged innovation. Thus, even if the French academy gave MOST of its financial support to painting, we would still not expect much innovation in painting. Choice (A) does not explain why there was so much innovation in painting despite the fact that the academy discouraged innovation.

Quote:
(B) The French academy in the nineteenth century financially supported a greater number of sculptors than painters, but individual painters received more support, on average, than individual sculptors.

Again, regardless of how much financial support the painters received from the academy, the academy still discouraged innovation. Painters' receiving more money from the academy is not enough to explain why innovation was greater among painters than among sculptors. Even if the painters had received a virtually limitless supply of funds from the academy, that would not change the fact that the academy discouraged innovation. Thus, we would still not expect much innovation in painting.

Only choice (C) explains the difference in innovation between painting and sculpting.

I hope this helps!


thanks to you GMATNinja

Surely your explanation was great to address the issue raised by me

thanks to you again, man
8-)
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2016
Posts: 61
Own Kudos [?]: 26 [0]
Given Kudos: 65
Location: Pakistan
Concentration: Finance, Technology
Schools: CBS '20
GMAT 1: 640 Q43 V35
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
So the sponsor was x for both painters and sculptors. X didn't want innovation. There was little innovation in sculptor and more in paintings. How? Something must be different. Some painters must have painted with support of X, to what they like i.e. innovation. C solves the paradox.

Wow, post LSAT, I might think of writing some mystery novels myself ;)
Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1090
Own Kudos [?]: 1970 [0]
Given Kudos: 200
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was a major financial sponsor of painting and sculpture in France; sponsorship by private individuals had decreased dramatically by this time. Because the academy discouraged innovation in the arts, there was little innovation in nineteenth century French sculpture. Yet nineteenth century French painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the difference between the amount of innovation in French painting and the amount of innovation in French sculpture during the nineteenth century

(A) In France in the nineteenth century, the French academy gave more of its financial support to painting than it did to sculpture. --More financial support doesn't mean that paintings will be more innovative because we know from the premise that french academy didn't support innovation.

(B) The French academy in the nineteenth century financially supported a greater number of sculptors than painters, but individual painters received more support, on average, than individual sculptors. --Same as A; greater support doesn't mean greater innovation.

(C) Because stone was so much more expensive than paint and canvas, far more unsponsored paintings were produced than were unsponsored sculptures in France during the nineteenth century. --Correct. The gretaer numbner of unsupported paintings help explain the greater number of innovative paintings

(D) Very few of the artists in France in the nineteenth century who produced sculptures also produced paintings. --Out of scope

(E) Although the academy was the primary sponsor of sculpture and painting, the total amount of financial support that French sculptors and painters received from sponsors declined during the nineteenth century. --Again, like option A, this option merely states the greater amount of support.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 67
Own Kudos [?]: 44 [0]
Given Kudos: 42
GMAT 1: 570 Q49 V19
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
A really good question with some close contenders. We need to resolve the paradox and the paradox over here is the fact that despite French academy of art discouraging innovation in arts how is it true that 19th century paintings had much more innovation than 19th century sculptures. An important catch over here is that the French academy of art is a major financial sponsor of both paintings and sculptures.

Let me just focus on options A, B and C as D and E are easy to strike off. A and B might seem tempting but despite the fact that painters received more financial support this finding cannot account for the higher degree of innovation observed in painting as the French academy of art anyways discouraged innovation and the more funds received by painters was probably invested not in innovation but in exnovation.
Option C on the other hand gives a good enough reason to explain the high degree of innovation in painting. As paint and canvas was inexpensive hence there were more unsponsored painting and unsponsored painting does not require the academy's funds hence the painters no longer need to heed to the academy's advice whereas sculptures on the other hand required expensive stones and hence there were fewer unsponsored sculptures and most of the sculptures were sponsored by the academy hence there was little innovation.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Posts: 19
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V41 (Online)
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
The reason A and B can be eliminated is the fact that
1)Academy discouraged innovation, and
2)Academy was the major sponsor for painting and sculpture.

If the academy sponsor painter/sculptor, it would want the painter/sculptor to produce according to its requirements. Requirements did not involve INNOVATION. Hence, anyone getting sponsorship from the academy is not expected to innovate.

This is where A and B fall off.

C explains that more painters produced unsponsored paintings. Hence, they innovated.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Dec 2015
Posts: 468
Own Kudos [?]: 543 [0]
Given Kudos: 84
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was a major financial sponsor of painting and sculpture in France; sponsorship by private individuals had decreased dramatically by this time. Because the academy discouraged innovation in the arts, there was little innovation in nineteenth century French sculpture. Yet nineteenth century French painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the difference between the amount of innovation in French painting and the amount of innovation in French sculpture during the nineteenth century?
Analysis: resolve the paradox
Academy --financial support--> sculpture
Academy --financial support--> painting
painting innovation > sculpture : why?
may be painters are more self motivated or may be painters have significantly less issue compare to sculptures in term of financial support


(A) In France in the nineteenth century, the French academy gave more of its financial support to painting than it did to sculpture. --> more financial support doesn't guarantee more innovation: it says in the premise that remarkable/significant innovations, more finance can't do that. there should be some other better reason for this.

(B) The French academy in the nineteenth century financially supported a greater number of sculptors than painters, but individual painters received more support, on average, than individual sculptors. --> so sculptors should be greater than paintings, but it's not

(C) Because stone was so much more expensive than paint and canvas, far more unsponsored paintings were produced than were unsponsored sculptures in France during the nineteenth century. --> correct: align w/ analysis: paintings > sculptures>> so more innovations in paintings

(D) Very few of the artists in France in the nineteenth century who produced sculptures also produced paintings. --> common artists will not resolve the paradox

(E) Although the academy was the primary sponsor of sculpture and painting, the total amount of financial support that French sculptors and painters received from sponsors declined during the nineteenth century. --> doesn't resolve the paradox: sponsors declined --> innovations should declined for both
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2018
Posts: 116
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [0]
Given Kudos: 336
Location: India
Schools: ISB '23 (S)
GMAT 1: 560 Q43 V23
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V33
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.64
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
B.The French academy in the nineteenth century financially supported a greater number of sculptors than painters, but individual painters received more support, on average than individual sculptors.

I understand that C is correct.

But I want to know whether B could mean the following.

Let's say there are 100 sculptors and 100 painters. The academy supported more sculptors than painters, for eg. 80 sculptors out of a group of 100 sculptors. And in this case, the academy is somehow not encouraging innovation amongst this 80.

Whereas out of a group of 100 painters if the academy supported only 10 ( and that too let's say by providing the maximum support. ) 90 are left unsupported. And because these painters are not related to the academy they can innovate.


If B somehow represents the situation above then B can very explain the discrepancy. Please let me know where I am wrong.

Thank you
Sonal
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63649 [0]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
Expert Reply
sonalchhajed2019 wrote:
B.The French academy in the nineteenth century financially supported a greater number of sculptors than painters, but individual painters received more support, on average than individual sculptors.

I understand that C is correct.

But I want to know whether B could mean the following.

Let's say there are 100 sculptors and 100 painters. The academy supported more sculptors than painters, for eg. 80 sculptors out of a group of 100 sculptors. And in this case, the academy is somehow not encouraging innovation amongst this 80.

Whereas out of a group of 100 painters if the academy supported only 10 ( and that too let's say by providing the maximum support. ) 90 are left unsupported. And because these painters are not related to the academy they can innovate.


If B somehow represents the situation above then B can very explain the discrepancy. Please let me know where I am wrong.

Thank you
Sonal

Keep in mind that we are looking for the answer that "most helps to explain the difference between the amount of innovation" in French painting and sculpture. Since (C) explicitly tells us that far more unsponsored paintings were produced than unsponsored sculptures, this explains the difference. But what about (B)?

Quote:
(B) The French academy in the nineteenth century financially supported a greater number of sculptors than painters, but individual painters received more support, on average, than individual sculptors.

Notice that (B) doesn't tell us anything about the total number of unsponsored artists versus the number of unsponsored sculptors. Nor does it tell us how many artists or sculptors there were total.

In your consideration of (B), you assumed an equal number of artists and sculptors to begin with (i.e. 100 of each). But that assumes that there were an equal number of artists and sculptors, and we definitely can't make that assumption. For instance, what if there were 100 sculptors and only 50 painters? If the academy supported 80 sculptors and 50 painters (i.e. more sculptors than painters), there would still be more unsupported sculptors than unsupported painters, and so we'd expect more innovation in sculpture.

Overall, (C) provides a rock-solid explanation for the difference in innovation, so it's correct. Answer choice (B), on the other hand, requires us to make an assumption for it to explain the difference. So, (B) is incorrect.

I hope that helps!
CEO
CEO
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Posts: 2552
Own Kudos [?]: 1812 [0]
Given Kudos: 763
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was a major financial sponsor of painting and sculpture in France; sponsorship by private individuals had decreased dramatically by this time. Because the academy discouraged innovation in the arts, there was little innovation in nineteenth century French sculpture. Yet nineteenth century French painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the difference between the amount of innovation in French painting and the amount of innovation in French sculpture during the nineteenth century

(A) In France in the nineteenth century, the French academy gave more of its financial support to painting than it did to sculpture. - WRONG. Needs an assumption that sponsorship support means innovation.

(B) The French academy in the nineteenth century financially supported a greater number of sculptors than painters, but individual painters received more support, on average, than individual sculptors. - WRONG. Again like A, this needs an assumption.

(C) Because stone was so much more expensive than paint and canvas, far more unsponsored paintings were produced than were unsponsored sculptures in France during the nineteenth century. - CORRECT. True. Something that may have caused such a difference.

(D) Very few of the artists in France in the nineteenth century who produced sculptures also produced paintings. - WRONG. Nowhere near. Irrelevant.

(E) Although the academy was the primary sponsor of sculpture and painting, the total amount of financial support that French sculptors and painters received from sponsors declined during the nineteenth century. - WRONG. Nothing new.

Three aspects make this passage:
1. Sponsored Money
2. Discouragement of innovation
3. Difference of amount of innovation in painting and that of sculpture

What might have lead to such a scenario?

Answer C.
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17206
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne