Paul wrote:
Certain similarities between prehistoric art and the art of children has led some people to the mistaken conclusion that either early humans had the mentality of children or that they were as unskilled as children. These conclusions assume which of the following?
A) Art that is considered sophisticated today must always have been considered sophisticated
B) What is easy for humans today must always have been easy
C) The significance of art is consistent over time
D) Prehistoric humans painted in the same way that children now paint
E) Modern humans have learned from prehistoric man
Wow, IMO this question is deadly! Ok, here's my thought, to find assumption we need to take into consideraion two parts. First, because of
similarities between prehistoric art and the art of children we'll say that they (pre-hist) had
mentality of children or
they were as unskilled as children. I don't believe any of the choices offer an assumption supporting both statements.
A) Possibly-unless find one better
B) What was easy, Too general for me (although I like it)
C) oh oh, close here. Let's say the significance is not important. That for example pre-historic men only did it for specific purposes, or better yet were too busy hunting and so on, and only children were doodling. Hmm, keep for now
D) As Anandnk said, too limited, what about scultures, or building whatever, we can't assume that art is limited to painting.
E) HUH? Don't see that assumption anywhere, a little to farfetched.
Ok, so A vs C, In A sophisticated makes me cringe, dont think its about sophistication. So, C is it for me. Definitely > 2min