Appreciation of art requires a 'certain environment' --> but art museums have started with “art-show events” --> the events are heavily advertised and bring in huge crowd.
So the author is essentially saying that at “art-show events” the art is not appreciated.
What will be the underlying assumption to reach this correlation?
Huge crowds & the "events result in the environment not conducive to appreciate art.
The question asks for a strengthener that is new information that increases our belief in the above.
(A) People who really love and understand art tend to avoid museum art-show events.
Irrelevant, people can still love coming to these events(B) The more time one spends and the fewer people that are around, the more one will like a work of art.
Irrelevant, no one is talking about liking the art,for all we know they may still not like the art even if proper environment is provided. (C) Most of the people who go to museum art-show events do not know how to appreciate art and fail to realize what they are missing.
Irrelevant, the author is discussing about the environment and not the people (D) Art museum directors are forced to put on art-show events in order to raise money.
Irrelevant (E) Museum art-show events do not facilitate proper appreciation of art.
correct choice, negating it -> Museum art-show events facilitate proper appreciation of art, hence they provide the environment conducive to appreciate art, breaks down the authors conclusion or correlation Hope this helps!
nedunurianurag &
nikitathegreat