Here is my 2 cents:
Choice D: notice that the stimulus said critics assume that El Greco drew paintings "
without knowing it" (the disease). If we want to counter critics' claim, we can just say that El Greco actually
knew it (he knew that the disease)! And this is exactly what D is talking about.
Choice E: E is comparing artists and nonartists. IMO, E would be true if we compare El Greco and other artists, but the comparison between artist and nonartists won't work because:
critics are critics because they
know stuffs. Art critics are art critics
because they know art. Then why would any critics compare paintings of an artist with those of a nonartist? It would make more sense if we say: El Greco sees the world differently than other artists. You might know that a lot of critics are themselves, artists. Then if E is the case, these would be on El Greco's side / have the same aesthetics, seeing differently than nonartists. Then these critics wouldn't say that El Greco has a disease because he see things differently when critics and El Greco have the same aesthetics.
Here is the
official answer (from
OG 2021) in case anyone needs it:
D. Correct. If El Greco had astigmatism and did not know it, his perception of human
figures (including any models used for his painting) could have shown them as taller
(or wider) and perhaps with longer limbs than in reality. Did such distorted perception
also operate when El Greco looked at brush strokes in his paintings of those figures? If
so, he would have perceived those brush strokes as longer than they really were and
the completed representation of each human figure in the painting as also more
elongated than it was. If the degree of distortion was the same both in his perceptions
of people and in his perceptions of the painted representations of them, then one
would expect his paintings to be perceived by non-astigmatic viewers as having no
unusual distortions. But that is not the case. So the critics' proposed explanation
seems dubious.
E. The explanation offered by the critics is consistent with the possibility that—in a literal
sense—artists see the world differently than do nonartists. The critics' hypothesis is
aimed at explaining a difference between El Greco's paintings and those of many other
artists, not a difference between artists in general and nonartists. The possibility that
artists in general see things differently does not challenge the hypothesis that El Greco
differed from many other artists in having astigmatism.
Thanks for the explanation. I have to admit that I still not get the point: how can EG’s perception of reality and his paintings can cancel out to the eyes of non-astigmatic people? It seems to me that they actually could reinforce..