Logical reasoning PrepTest 142 · Section 1 · Question 11

Incorrect. While Waverly claims to have provided only objective accounts in her textbook, that doesn't mean she believes art historians shouldn't like some art better than others. Maybe she believes that they should have preferences, but they need to put them aside when they're writing instructional material.

Incorrect. Waverly set to neither advocate nor denigrate the works she included in her book. That doesn't mean she had strong opinions about them—she could work to neither advocate nor denigrate works that she's indifferent towards but believes are important for art history students to know about.

Incorrect. The only information we get about Waverly's intentions was that she set out to present important works of art, and she set out to remain objective about them. While that doesn't contradict this answer, it strongly suggests otherwise. Note that this answer is about Waverly's intent, not the Critic's belief towards her success.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be true

Stimulus Summary:
Waverly Ð "I'm objective in my art history textbook."
Critic Ð No one can be objective. Waverly writes better on art she likes.

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus is almost a Point at Issue question. Waverly claims that she's objective in her textbook, but the Critic sets out a blanket rule—in art, objectivity "never" succeeds. In other words, Waverly is wrong.

That very strong rule about objectivity never being present in art is likely to lead us to the correct answer. It might loop in Waverly (her being wrong about her objectivity) or it might not, so let's stay flexible while considering any answer about objectivity in art.

Answer Explanation:
Waverly intended to be objective, but the Critic establishes that one can "never succeed" at doing so. Therefore, Waverly must have failed in her objective, and this answer is supported.

Key Takeaway:
Must Be True questions featuring a stimulus with a categorical statement—"objectivity never succeeds"—almost always rely on that statement to justify the conclusion. At the very least, you can use it to define what subject matter the correct answer is likely to discuss and then focus on those answers.

Incorrect. While the Critic notes that Waverly "claims" to have been objective—a word that does carry some disbelief in it—we can't actually get inside Waverly's head without a premise establishing her subjective thoughts. Therefore, this answer can't be supported—even though the Critic has established it's impossible to be objective, Waverly might believe otherwise.