Art historian: Great works of art have often elicited outrage when fir

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Take a close look at the conclusion: “we should not hesitate to use public funds to support works of art that many people find shocking.” Did “public funds” appear anywhere else in the argument? No. Given our discussion about linking new elements that appear in the conclusion, you should have recognized that a new element was present and responded accordingly. Given that Supporters connect new elements, one would suspect that the correct answer would include this element and that either answer choice (B) or (D) was correct.

Take a look at the argument structure:

Premise: Great works of art have often elicited outrage when first presented; in Europe, Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring prompted a riot, and Manet’s Déjeuner sur l’herbe elicited outrage and derision.

Premise: Art is often shocking.

Conclusion: We should not hesitate to use public funds to support works of art that many people find shocking. However, because the structure of the last sentence in the stimulus (“So, since...”) suggests that the author uses the second premise to prove the conclusion, you should focus on the relationship between those two pieces. For the author to say that art is shocking and therefore art should be publicly funded, the author must assume that art is worthy of public support. This assumption is reflected in answer choice (D), the correct answer.

Answer choice (A): The author states that “art is often shocking” but does not assume that most art is shocking.

Answer choice (B): This is the most popular wrong answer choice. In the argument, is the author committed to believing that Stravinsky and Manet received public funding? Does the author need this statement in order for the rest of the argument to work? No. The author uses Stravinsky and Manet as examples of artists whose work caused shock, but the author never assumes that those individuals received public funding. Think for a moment—does the conclusion rest on the fact that Stravinsky and Manet received public funding?

Answer choice (C): The author makes no statement regarding the “shock level” of today’s art, and thus there is no way to determine if an assumption has been made comparing the shock level of past and present art.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. The answer acts as a Supporter and connects the elements in the final sentence.

Answer choice (E): The author states that “art is often shocking,” but there is no indication that a conditional assumption has been made stating that anything that shocks is art.