Q7

[moshemeer]

Why is the answer B? Hate these main point questions....

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Main Idea

Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
Lines 7-10 first appear as the thesis (right where we most often see the main point sentence -- end of the 1st paragraph, connected to a "but, yet, however, recently")

As we read more of the passage, we learn that historians want to focus on the 2nd way, and the author points out troubling assumptions with this second way from 24-30.

When it comes to the neglected 1st way, the author wants us to realize that the art often did NOT represent the governing class that paid for it. Lines 41-52 summarize the implications for Taruskin and his type of historian.

Any prephrase?
The author is essentially arguing against people who think "the art that survives to the present day is a reflection of the elites who paid for it". The author is saying, "I doubt that. After all, much of the art that survived to today was paid for by an elite who ended up hating the art. It DIDN'T speak for them. They 'overtly disapproved' of it."

Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:

(A) The author never argued that "having upper and middle class people pay for art was NOT well suited to producing long living art". The central point isn't about whether or not art endured. It's about whether or the not the art that endured is a good reflection of the elites who paid for it.

(B) Yes, this is annoying vague, but it certainly reinforces our Most Valuable Sentence in lines 7-10. If they "fail to clarify there are two different ways" and "prefer to deal with the second way", then we could accuse them of oversimplifying. Also, the author is pointing out that there are clear examples of art that was paid for by an elite but did NOT reflect the elite's tastes (the elite person overtly disapproved of the art).

(C) Way too broad. This is about attacking Taruskin and others who share his view. This answer sounds like the main character was "patrons of the arts". Also, at no point in the passage was this comparison made. We know that some patrons WERE attracted to what being a patron would do for their reputation, but we're never told that it outweighed their concern for the development of the arts.

(D) Very tempting, but ultimately too narrow. Lines 24-30 lay out the author's two problems with Taruskin's view: 1. Did the elite people even HAVE artistic ideals to impose onto the art they hired people to create? (this gets shot down in P4) 2. Did artists ever purposefully make art that did NOT align with the patron's ideals? (this gets affirmed in the last paragraph) So this answer choice, while mostly accurate, is too narrowly focused on that 2nd problem.

(E) This also tracks closely with WHAT is said in lines 7-10, but it doesn't capture WHY it's said … namely, to push back against the view of Taruskin and his ilk.

Takeaway/Pattern: I hate the correct answers on some modern RC main point questions. This main point feels far too oversimplified, pun intended. Whereas correct main point answers on older LSATs used to closely align with actual sentences in the passage, many modern correct main point answers are very gist-y. If you're down to 2, like (B) or (E), and considering the one that has more "word matches" with the passage, you may be getting sucked into this modern trap. Make sure there's nothing too narrow or too extreme about the answer you're picking.

#officialexplanation

[andrewgong01]

Regarding the modern RC trap on similar word matches, does it only apply to main point questions? I noticed for other questions like inferences (such as Q11 of this passage ), word matches also help in getting the right answer because all the other choices are too extreme or out of scope talking about something different.

[VickX462]

Question Type:
Main Idea

Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
Lines 7-10 first appear as the thesis (right where we most often see the main point sentence -- end of the 1st paragraph, connected to a "but, yet, however, recently")

As we read more of the passage, we learn that historians want to focus on the 2nd way, and the author points out troubling assumptions with this second way from 24-30.

When it comes to the neglected 1st way, the author wants us to realize that the art often did NOT represent the governing class that paid for it. Lines 41-52 summarize the implications for Taruskin and his type of historian.

Any prephrase?
The author is essentially arguing against people who think "the art that survives to the present day is a reflection of the elites who paid for it". The author is saying, "I doubt that. After all, much of the art that survived to today was paid for by an elite who ended up hating the art. It DIDN'T speak for them. They 'overtly disapproved' of it."

Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:

(A) The author never argued that "having upper and middle class people pay for art was NOT well suited to producing long living art". The central point isn't about whether or not art endured. It's about whether or the not the art that endured is a good reflection of the elites who paid for it.

(B) Yes, this is annoying vague, but it certainly reinforces our Most Valuable Sentence in lines 7-10. If they "fail to clarify there are two different ways" and "prefer to deal with the second way", then we could accuse them of oversimplifying. Also, the author is pointing out that there are clear examples of art that was paid for by an elite but did NOT reflect the elite's tastes (the elite person overtly disapproved of the art).

(C) Way too broad. This is about attacking Taruskin and others who share his view. This answer sounds like the main character was "patrons of the arts". Also, at no point in the passage was this comparison made. We know that some patrons WERE attracted to what being a patron would do for their reputation, but we're never told that it outweighed their concern for the development of the arts.

(D) Very tempting, but ultimately too narrow. Lines 24-30 lay out the author's two problems with Taruskin's view: 1. Did the elite people even HAVE artistic ideals to impose onto the art they hired people to create? (this gets shot down in P4) 2. Did artists ever purposefully make art that did NOT align with the patron's ideals? (this gets affirmed in the last paragraph) So this answer choice, while mostly accurate, is too narrowly focused on that 2nd problem.

(E) This also tracks closely with WHAT is said in lines 7-10, but it doesn't capture WHY it's said … namely, to push back against the view of Taruskin and his ilk.

Takeaway/Pattern: I hate the correct answers on some modern RC main point questions. This main point feels far too oversimplified, pun intended. Whereas correct main point answers on older LSATs used to closely align with actual sentences in the passage, many modern correct main point answers are very gist-y. If you're down to 2, like (B) or (E), and considering the one that has more "word matches" with the passage, you may be getting sucked into this modern trap. Make sure there's nothing too narrow or too extreme about the answer you're picking.

#officialexplanation

I chose (D) in the beginning. But now that I read it again, I think it could be interpreted as a normative statement––"Sociohistorical critics SHOULD engage in a form of Freudian analysis to justify..." This contradicts the argument of the author, who claims that this method of analysis is wrong. Could this a right way of eliminating answer choice (D), besides its issue with scope?