Q8

[mrudula_2005]

Can you help me understand where exactly A and D go wrong?

thank you!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sure, glad to help.

The question asks us to find what can be inferred from the passage about Chinese art and realism.

(A) is unsupported. No where does the passage state that leaders of the Native Soil practiced a modified form of realism in reaction against the Scar Artists. Instead they co-opted the techniques of the Scar Artists (lines 44-46).
(B)
(C) is contradicted. Scar Art and the Native Soil movement were in reaction to realism.
(D) is unsupported. This answer choice relies on one's potentially thinking that because the Native Soil movement focused on rural life, that the movements before the Native Soil did not. But no where does the passage give us that.
(E) is contradicted. Scar Art is a form of modified realism (line 30).

Good luck with your prep! Let me know if you need any more help on this one.

[cyruswhittaker]

Regarding choice C, is this choice incorrect more due to it saying that the "goals of realism...have been effectively furthered," and there was no discussion of the "goals" of realism in Chinese art.

The passage seems to say that these forms were a "new approach" (line 30) to realism, and that the Scar movement was a reaction to "Revolutionary Realism."

But in choice C, it just states realism in general, so I chose this answer thinking that the movemenents helped to expand on the conceptions that govern realism in Chinese art.

[alinanny]

Sure, glad to help.

The question asks us to find what can be inferred from the passage about Chinese art and realism.

(A) is unsupported. No where does the passage state that leaders of the Native Soil practiced a modified form of realism in reaction against the Scar Artists. Instead they co-opted the techniques of the Scar Artists (lines 44-46).(B)
(C) is contradicted. Scar Art and the Native Soil movement were in reaction to realism.
(D) is unsupported. This answer choice relies on one's potentially thinking that because the Native Soil movement focused on rural life, that the movements before the Native Soil did not. But no where does the passage give us that.
(E) is contradicted. Scar Art is a form of modified realism (line 30).

Good luck with your prep! Let me know if you need any more help on this one.

Hello!
I was confused but after reading your explanation I am even more confused.
For A. You point out that in line 44-46 the Native Soil Movement co-opted the techniques of the Scar movement. My understanding is that because the Scar movement co-opted to express or lean towards a more political approach, some artists abandoned the movement and then the passage introduces the Native Soil Movement. If my understanding is correct, the NSM was formed by those artist who abandoned the movement. Can anyone please help me clarify thi? I am very confused
Now for D. You are mentioning the Native Soil movement but D is about the Scar Art movement. Now if we look at line 25 "perhaps the first time confronted" ofcourse it would be huge to infer that they were the first ones to have an interest in rural life but I wanted to point out that it was the Scar Art movement and not the Native Soil Movement.
Also, your explanation for B is blank. For B I can just refer to line 9-15, then lines 26-28 and then to 46-48. There were some conflicting conception of realism.
I am still confused about A. I know it's wrong but I just can't see WHY?
Thanks in advance.

[interestedintacos]

For A. You point out that in line 44-46 the Native Soil Movement co-opted the techniques of the Scar movement. My understanding is that because the Scar movement co-opted to express or lean towards a more political approach, some artists abandoned the movement and then the passage introduces the Native Soil Movement. If my understanding is correct, the NSM was formed by those artist who abandoned the movement. Can anyone please help me clarify thi? I am very confused

That is actually a distorted reading of the text. The text says many artists abandoned Scar Art, but not that those artists went on to be part of Native Soil. Also, A is wrong because Native Soil was not a reaction against Scar Art. It was merely a related development that came up after Scar Art faltered. It wasn't developed somehow in reaction to and especially not against Scar Art. What the text says is that Native Soil was a reaction to the Cultural Revolution, just like Scar Art was as well.

Now for D. You are mentioning the Native Soil movement but D is about the Scar Art movement. Now if we look at line 25 "perhaps the first time confronted" ofcourse it would be huge to infer that they were the first ones to have an interest in rural life but I wanted to point out that it was the Scar Art movement and not the Native Soil Movement.

You are correct to point out that MShermn made a slight mistake there, but he gets the bottom line point, which you also recognize, that we can't say interest in rural life began with these reactions to the Cultural Revolution. In fact it's even likely that Revolutionary Realism also depicted rural life, just not in the same way as the Scar Art movement.

Also, your explanation for B is blank. For B I can just refer to line 9-15, then lines 26-28 and then to 46-48. There were some conflicting conception of realism.

This answer choice requires synthesis of multiple parts of the passage. It's not really one of those inferences you get from a single line. Nevertheless, as you can see there are specific line references that illustrate it.

I am still confused about A. I know it's wrong but I just can't see WHY?
Thanks in advance.

Again, the Native Soil movement was not a reaction against Scar Art. If you read the text closely you'll see that the Native Soil movement was, similarly to Scar Art, a reaction against the Cultural Revolution. In some sense you could say Scar Art supported a preoccupation with rural life, which eventually helped lead to the Native Soil movement, but that of course wouldn't mean Native Soil was a "reaction against" Scar Art; if anything it would show it was a modification/related development, not something in opposition.

[alinanny]

For A. You point out that in line 44-46 the Native Soil Movement co-opted the techniques of the Scar movement. My understanding is that because the Scar movement co-opted to express or lean towards a more political approach, some artists abandoned the movement and then the passage introduces the Native Soil Movement. If my understanding is correct, the NSM was formed by those artist who abandoned the movement. Can anyone please help me clarify thi? I am very confused

That is actually a distorted reading of the text. The text says many artists abandoned Scar Art, but not that those artists went on to be part of Native Soil. Also, A is wrong because Native Soil was not a reaction against Scar Art. It was merely a related development that came up after Scar Art faltered. It wasn't developed somehow in reaction to and especially not against Scar Art. What the text says is that Native Soil was a reaction to the Cultural Revolution, just like Scar Art was as well.

Now for D. You are mentioning the Native Soil movement but D is about the Scar Art movement. Now if we look at line 25 "perhaps the first time confronted" ofcourse it would be huge to infer that they were the first ones to have an interest in rural life but I wanted to point out that it was the Scar Art movement and not the Native Soil Movement.

You are correct to point out that MShermn made a slight mistake there, but he gets the bottom line point, which you also recognize, that we can't say interest in rural life began with these reactions to the Cultural Revolution. In fact it's even likely that Revolutionary Realism also depicted rural life, just not in the same way as the Scar Art movement.

Also, your explanation for B is blank. For B I can just refer to line 9-15, then lines 26-28 and then to 46-48. There were some conflicting conception of realism.

This answer choice requires synthesis of multiple parts of the passage. It's not really one of those inferences you get from a single line. Nevertheless, as you can see there are specific line references that illustrate it.

I am still confused about A. I know it's wrong but I just can't see WHY?
Thanks in advance.

Again, the Native Soil movement was not a reaction against Scar Art. If you read the text closely you'll see that the Native Soil movement was, similarly to Scar Art, a reaction against the Cultural Revolution. In some sense you could say Scar Art supported a preoccupation with rural life, which eventually helped lead to the Native Soil movement, but that of course wouldn't mean Native Soil was a "reaction against" Scar Art; if anything it would show it was a modification/related development, not something in opposition.

I get it! I was making a wrong assumption. I was connecting some painters leaving the movement as a reaction against Scar with them being part of the Native Soild Movement.
Thank you. Very helpful