Logical reasoning PrepTest 123 · Section 2 · Question 25

Incorrect. First, the academy discouraged innovation, and this answer doesn't explain why their providing more funding to painters would result in the innovation they discouraged. Also, how much more funding did they provide? And was it more per painter, or just more overall? Without this information, it's hard to know how this would resolve the paradox.

Incorrect. If anything, fewer painters would lead to less innovation, as there would be fewer ideas. This also doesn't explain why the academy funding painters to a high level would result in the innovation that they discouraged.

Correct. This answer choice highlights a significant difference in painting and sculpture in 19th century France. Would there being "far more" unsponsored painters than sculptors explain why there was more innovation in painting? Since the primary sponsor discouraged innovation, it would. These unsponsored painters—not reliant on a sponsor that discouraged innovation—would be more likely to innovate than the sculptors who were relying on the sponsors. This resolves the paradox.

Incorrect. While this answer choice certainly aligns with the paradox—these groups being different makes sense since one was more innovative than the other—it doesn't explain why the painters were more innovative. Even if there were no sculptor/painters, why was it the painters who were innovative instead of the sculptors?

Incorrect. This answer choice highlights a similarity between painters and sculptors, and the question stem is asking us to resolve a paradox about them being different.