PT109.S1.Q10 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27 Question 28

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that we should use public funds to support works of art that many people find shocking.

Why?

Because great works of art have often been shocking, which shows that art can be shocking.

The author assumes that public funds should go toward producing works of art.

The author assumes that the shocking nature of an artwork does not justify withholding public funding of that art.

Not necessary, because even if less than most art is shocking, we know there still exists great art, and public funding of art can still be justified for the goal of producing great art.

Not necessary, because the author only used Stravinsky and Manet as examples of artists who produced great art that was shocking. The author did not rely on them as examples of artists who were publicly funded.

Not necessary, because the author doesn’t rely on a comparison between modern and older art. The author cites to older art for the point that there can be great art that is shocking.

Necessary, because if it were not true — if public funds should NOT support art — then we no longer have any reason to believe public funds should support works of art that people find shocking. (D) describes the author’s baseline assumption that art is an appropriate thing to be funded by the public.

Not necessary, because the author only cited to certain great works of art that happened to be shocking. The author never suggested that the shocking quality of those works was sufficient to make them great.

PrepTest 109 - Section 1 - Question 10

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action