During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was

Question

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

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

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.

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!

kill3rlook5 · Answer

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.

Vineetk · Answer

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.

Archit143 · Answer

It took 2 min 15 sec fairly simple.... its straight C

salviabu · Answer

if painting was supported more financially wouldn't it be more innovative?

testcracker · Answer

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

testcracker · Answer

thanks to you GMATNinja Surely your explanation was great to address the issue raised by me thanks to you again, man

KungFuGmat · Answer

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

gmatexam439 · Answer

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.

pkshankar · Answer

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.

gauravjec · Answer

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.

hiranmay · Answer

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

sonalchhajed2019 · Answer

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

GMATNinja · Answer

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)?

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!

unraveled · Answer

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.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards