RC Question 22 Explanation
DISCUSSION: The first paragraph tells us the purpose of the passage. Lines 1-2 give us a definition of fake art.
Line 6 shows the author thinks it’s doubtful we can truly call any work original. The author thinks the book should have been called Original?
The rest of the passage gives examples of art that is hard to classify as original or derivative.
___________
- This isn’t true. Medieval Europe didn’t have fakes (lines 20-23), and the third paragraph implies that many foreign cultures don’t even have the concept of “fake”.
- The author never says exactly what makes a painting important.
- The author never addresses this question.
- CORRECT. This describes the first paragraph. We can say when art is fake (lines 1-2), but it’s not always clear what we can call “original”.
The rest of the paragraph uses examples to illustrate the point of the first paragraph.
A “Roman copy of a Greek original” was once a fake but now to us the statues are original. An African mask may be fake to us but original to a Bambaran. The second and third paragraphs exist to help prove the point mentioned in this answer. - This is close to what lines 15-16 say. Fake art needs an art market. But the passage never says the market has to be international.
Graeme-
Thanks for your explanations, as I have found great value in them.
I must say that I do have qualms with this question’s explanation coz
D’s explanation you provided is why I chose answer choice C.
which says, “It is possible to show that a work of art is fake” (supported by line 1 and 2nd par.) “but the authenticity of a work cannot be proved conclusively” (coz idea varies by culture supported by par. 3)
Maybe I’m missing something? thanks in advance!
Hi! There’s two issues with C. Let’s start with the more problematic one regarding the second part on authenticity. While the author says cultural differences and perspectives complicate the concept of authenticity, the passage never claims it is not possible to conclude the authenticity of a work. Instead, the author focuses on the difficulty and complexity of determining what counts as fake due to varying contexts and perspectives (which is exactly what D says).
In essence: this overstates the conclusion by asserting that authenticity cannot be proven conclusively. We don’t know that. We just know it’s complicated to label something as fake because of varying circumstances (answer D), not that it’s not possible to prove the authenticity of works.
As for the first part of C, it fails to capture the main part of the passage. It’s not WRONG to say that “it is possible to show that a work of art is fake”, but the whole point of the passage is that it is difficult to show this. So it’s not a meaningfully comprehensive way to summarize the main point of the passage, which is our task.
To summarize: 1) the first part of C fails to capture the nuance of the passage, and 2) the second part is outright wrong by overstating a conclusion that was not drawn in the passage.
I can see how the explanation for C might have failed to address these nuances, but I hope that helps. Let me know if you still have questions!