QUESTION TYPE: Paradox
PARADOX: The French academy sponsored both painting and sculpture. The academy’s funding stifled French sculpture. Yet somehow, there was innovation in French painting.
ANALYSIS: I can think of two possibilities:
- The people responsible for sponsoring Academic painting were less stifling.
- Painters were able to paint without funding from the Academy, but sculptors couldn’t do this.
Note that when you interpret vague words like @[email protected] and @[email protected], you should take them at their least impactful. E.g. 0.00001%. On the right answer, even this weak interpretation will explain things.
- This makes the situation more confusing. If the Academy was stifling, then how did increased Academic support lead to innovation in painting?
- This has little impact. We could end up with:
* Sculptors supported: 3010.
* Painters supported: 2090
* Average sculptor support: $10000
* Average painter support: $10500
Both groups are basically the same, so this can’t explain the difference. For an answer to be correct it must be impactful.
- CORRECT. This explains it. Painters could be innovative because they didn’t have to rely on the Academy.
Note that the words “far more” make this answer more impactful by default than an answer like B. Those words guarantee that C has an impact even at its least powerful interpretation.
- This just tells us there was no crossover between the groups. It doesn’t explain why the painters were different from the sculptors. (Two groups won’t produce radically different results merely because different people are involved.)
- This doesn’t tell us a difference between the two groups. They may both have experienced an
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions