GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 20 Oct 2018, 20:53

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

During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 382
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.88
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 18 Sep 2017, 20:02
9
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

70% (01:46) correct 30% (02:14) wrong based on 633 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

(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.

(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.

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

(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.

Source: LSAT

_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas


Originally posted by vomhorizon on 27 Nov 2012, 02:17.
Last edited by broall on 18 Sep 2017, 20:02, edited 1 time in total.
Reformatted question, OA added
Most Helpful Expert Reply
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2042
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Oct 2017, 09:42
6
2
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!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

General Discussion
AGSM Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 150
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2012, 03:26
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.
Director
Director
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 957
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2012, 04:12
It took 2 min 15 sec fairly simple.... its straight C
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Status: Searching for something I've been searching..LOL
Joined: 14 Dec 2016
Posts: 59
Location: India
Concentration: Healthcare, Operations
Schools: Ross '20
GMAT 1: 590 Q35 V42
GPA: 3.5
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Feb 2017, 21:39
2
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Jun 2017
Posts: 11
Premium Member
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Sep 2017, 22:32
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?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
S
Status: love the club...
Joined: 24 Mar 2015
Posts: 267
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2017, 09:49
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
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
S
Status: love the club...
Joined: 24 Mar 2015
Posts: 267
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2017, 07:12
1
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
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Sep 2016
Posts: 73
Location: Pakistan
Concentration: Finance, Technology
Schools: CBS '20
GMAT 1: 640 Q43 V35
Reviews Badge
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Dec 2017, 04:37
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 ;)
_________________

If you must err, err on the side of hope.
I believe in your success

BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1161
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Mar 2018, 01:21
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.
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Long And A Fruitful Journey - V21 to V41; If I can, So Can You!!


Preparing for RC my way


My study resources:
1. Useful Formulae, Concepts and Tricks-Quant
2. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation
3. LSAT RC compilation
4. Actual LSAT CR collection by Broal
5. QOTD RC (Carcass)
6. Challange OG RC
7. GMAT Prep Challenge RC

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 87
GMAT 1: 570 Q49 V19
CAT Tests
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2018, 00:28
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
avatar
B
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Posts: 15
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2018, 10:37
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was &nbs [#permalink] 28 Sep 2018, 10:37
Display posts from previous: Sort by

During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.