Reading comp PrepTest 122 · Section 3 · Question 12

Topic: Humanities

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Trend in a profession; Criticism of it
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Trend - Historians of African art - Refine classification system - Tribal origin of sculpture
  • Critics - Oversimplification/falsification to say one style is limited to one tribe

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author argues for critics’ view - “Centers of style”
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Trade diffuses objects and styles
  • Not tribal, but “centers of style” that spread over areas
  • Family of artists trade to surrounding area - uniform style while incorporating elements of surrounding tribes
  • Confuses art historians

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Example of center of style/family - Ouri/Burkina Faso, Konate family
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Konate - Produces sculptures for 5 surrounding ethnic groups and tourist trade
  • 5 different styles (Example - Nuna vs. Ko masks), but also consistent in own style (proportion/composition/color/technique)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Author recommendations
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Recommendation 1 - Start thinking about centers of style
  • Recommendation 2 (More important) - Stop trying to refine classification system and recognize artists work in different styles

Main Point: Because of the way centers of style and families of artists trade and distribute art through a region, historians of African art should be focused less on refining classification systems and more on understanding these centers of style and how sculptures are commissioned and distributed.

Lines 1-4 - Trend in a profession

Lines 4-10 - Criticism of profession

Lines 11-19 - Argument for criticism (Author)

Lines 29-34 - Example of that argument

Lines 47-50 - Recommendation from Author

Lines 40-55 - Author’s “more important” recommendation

Old Approach/New Approach - The passage kicks off with a description of the techniques used by historians of African art (Lines 1-4) before digging into criticism of that approach. The Author then implicitly sides with the critics by making an argument for their view in Paragraph 2. When an Author criticizes an approach, it’s likely that the passage is going to fall into an Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure, and the Author’s opinion of the new approach will serve as the main point. Here, that new approach is stated in Paragraph 4, where the Author recommends focusing less on refining classification systems based on “narrowly defined ethnic contexts” and instead focus on centers of style and distribution patterns for art. Since this is a Recommendation for a New Approach, it should serve as the central feature of our summarized main point, as it does above.

Generalization/Example - In Paragraph 2, the Author introduces the argument backing up the critics from Paragraph 1 (and thus implicitly siding with them). There, she states that trying to associate African sculptures based on certain characteristics to different tribes ignores how they’re created and distributed - created in centers of style and distributed to surrounding areas through trade. This generalization is then backed up in Paragraph 3 by the example of the Konate family in Ouri, Burkina Faso. When a passage so centrally features a generalization backed up by an example, that generalization should factor into the main point, as in our summary above.

Comparisons - Paragraph 3 includes a discussion of similarities and differences in Konate sculptures that are done for different clients in the surrounding region. While there are subtle differences in details (Lines 34-39) - so subtle that few people from outside the region can recognize them (Lines 44-46) - they all also have some consistent elements (listed in Lines 41-42).

List - There’s a limited list in Lines 41-42 of elements that are similar across all work done by the Konate sculptors. Since it’s so limited, we should expect at most a question about it.

Noting the shift in perspective from the critics to the Author, who largely sides with the critics, will be key here to assessing the main point and answer choices. After all, if you attributed the substantial argument to the critics instead of the Author, that would throw the main point, Meta-Structures, and Author’s attitude off!