The passage doesn’t suggest that the “leaders” of the Native Soil movement reacted against the “styles and techniques” of Scar Art. Although we know that many artists abandoned Scar Art because it was co-opted for political purposes, this doesn’t imply that artists reacted against Scar Art’s styles or techniques. They arguably reacted to Scar Art’s politicization, but this is different from reacting to styles and techniques.

Supported by the passage’s discussion of Maoist Revolutionary Realism, Scar Art, and Native Soil. Each movement involved different conceptions of realism based on different purposes. Maoist Revolutionary Realism was interested in portraying a government-endorsed truth. Scar Art was interested in the hardships of rural life. Native Soil was interested in portraying the charms of peasant life. These different purposes are “contrasting political and artistic purposes.”

The author never characterizes the goals of realism as having been “effectively furthered.” It’s not even clear that there are “goals of realism in Chinese art.” Different art movements had different goals.

Not supported, because we have no reason to think no Chinese realist painters had been interested in rural life before Scar Art emerged. Perhaps there were some realist painters interested in rural life hundreds of years before Scar Art. The author never suggests Scar Art marked the beginning of interest in rural life among Chinese realist painters.

The author describes Scar Art as a type of realist art.