#1 - Global Reference, Main Point

[Khodi7531]

I was stuck between A and B.

I didn't like that A said, "flourished independently" and I didn't like B that said, "ONLY to have ANTICIPATED new direction."

I understand that B is more holistic in it's approach to the mp - which is always crucial. But I figured B's use of "anticipating" too detrimental...and much more detrimental over "flourished independently". Because independently is random and not really supported but doesn't have any effect to the crux of what it's saying. But B's "anticipating" does....how did the artists anticipate it? They just broke traditional molds but where does that mean it's them anticipating anything.


That's why I chose A over B and can't stand getting this wrong.

[James Finch]

Hi Khodi,

This question is a Main Point, so even if an answer choice is textually supported in the passage, it's not necessarily correct. For example, here (A) is supported by the last sentence of the first paragraph, but doesn't accurately reflect the ultimate goal of the passage, which is to disprove the prophetic reputation of pre-WWI painters.

In contrast, (B) sums up well the point that these painters could only see the changes in artistic, not social, trends. As for "anticipate," that word is used in the sentence that sets up the point the passage is arguing against (lines 12-19):

"So fundamental is this break with tradition that it
is not surprising to discover that these artist—among
them Picasso and Braque in France, Kandinsky in
Germany, and Malevich in Russia—are often credited
with having anticipated not just subsequent
developments in the arts, but also the political and
social disruptions and upheavals of the modern world
that came into being during and after the war."

Basically that is saying that the artists have been credited with foreseeing postwar social trends; the passage then goes on to attack that idea.

Hope this clears things up!

[Khodi7531]

Yes, but isn't the world "only" an issue? Maybe because every other answer isn't as great I can see that someone would be left with B but how can you be comfortable choosing B with that in there?

[Jamena Pirone]

Hi Khodi,

You are right to be suspicious of the word "only" in answer choices. In Must Be True questions, for example, the word "only" can restrict a potential group further than the stimulus can support. Here, however, "only" is used as a literary device.

Let's say there is a student named John who gets great grades on his tests, so people presume he must be brilliant. One could say "John is not brilliant, he only tests well." This doesn't mean that John has no other qualities besides testing well, rather, it sets the concept of being brilliant against the concept of testing well, and conveys that the latter doesn't imply the former.

In the same vein, Answer Choice B uses "only" to say that while the painters anticipated new directions in artistic perception, that doesn't imply that they intentionally predicted social changes.

Hopefully that clears up the confusion!

[snowy]

Hi! I was between B and C and ultimately chose C, even though I wasn't convinced by either answer choice.

I see the area James quoted where the idea of the artists anticipating developments in the arts is definitely mentioned, but what I struggled with was whether or not that was necessarily the author's view. It's said that the artists are "often credited" with that ability, but I couldn't find anything in the last two paragraphs, which is where we hear about the author's own perspective, that agrees with that crediting. The closest thing I could find was in line 32 when the author mentions "their exceptional aesthetic innovations," but creating new artistic directions isn't the same thing as predicting new artistic directions.

I also thought that the language in B saying that the artists "cannot be said to have intentionally predicted social changes" was a bit strong, since it didn't seem like the author ever explicitly said the possibility was absolutely impossible. It seemed rather that the author thinks it is very unlikely, and that the author is more focused on crediting "their exceptional aesthetic innovations rather to any power to make clever guesses" (30-34, which is the conclusion/argument of the author is, right?) than on saying the artists cannot have at all predicted social changes.

The position of the author in this passage was pretty confusing to me as you can probably tell, so I'd really appreciate any insight on where I'm going wrong with this! Thank you in advance!

[Zach Foreman]

Snowy,
I think this passage gave a lot of people problems, mainly because figuring out the author's purpose was not easy. I think the passage can be boiled down to "This one guy's opinion is too extreme!" In lines 19-23, the author summarizes one critics extreme opinion that these artists are interesting and valuable not because of their artistic innovation but their "prophetic power" that is their ability to predict social/political change.
The rest of the passage is an argument against this extreme position. In lines 30-34, the author directly refutes the critic, stating that aesthetics not politics are most important here. The author then doubles down, bluntly stating that "The reformation of society was of no interest..."
In the final paragraph, the author points out that if only artists who predict future social change are of value, then Delacroix must be of no value, because he came after, not before societal change. But both his contemporaries and modern viewers alike attest to his innovativeness.
This is an argument against a specific extreme position that branched off from a more moderate, widely held opinion mentioned in the first paragraph.
So, how to prephrase? I would definitely include the aspect that this is a big counterargument. "It is incorrect to say that the work of the pre–World War I European painters who developed new ways of looking at the world are only valuable or interesting because of their predicting societal change, rather than their artistic innovation."
And that is pretty close to B.
the first part of C "the work...was important for its ability to predict social changes" goes directly against the prephrase and the passage. In 33 he denies that the works have predictive power and if they were important for that reason, then what of Delacroix, who didn't predict social change but was important?

I think the whole key to B being correct is the word "intentional". Yes, the works predicted social change, but that was not the intention. Picasso and Braque had no intention, no care for social change.

[ashutosh_73]

Hi Khodi,

This question is a Main Point, so even if an answer choice is textually supported in the passage, it's not necessarily correct. For example, here (A) is supported by the last sentence of the first paragraph, but doesn't accurately reflect the ultimate goal of the passage, which is to disprove the prophetic reputation of pre-WWI painters.

In contrast, (B) sums up well the point that these painters could only see the changes in artistic, not social, trends. As for "anticipate," that word is used in the sentence that sets up the point the passage is arguing against (lines 12-19):

"So fundamental is this break with tradition that it
is not surprising to discover that these artist—among
them Picasso and Braque in France, Kandinsky in
Germany, and Malevich in Russia—are often credited
with having anticipated not just subsequent
developments in the arts, but also the political and
social disruptions and upheavals of the modern world
that came into being during and after the war."

Basically that is saying that the artists have been credited with foreseeing postwar social trends; the passage then goes on to attack that idea.

Hope this clears things up!

Hi,
''anticipated new directions in artistic perception and expression'' in option be (B) is what puts me off.

''Anticipated'' has been mentioned in between line 14 - 16, but it has been used to indicate its popular view, which Author criticizes in next paragraph.

In its critique, Author mentioned that:
''the forward-looking quality attributed to these artists should instead be credited to their exceptional aesthetic innovations rather than to any power to make clever guesses about political or social trends.''

Isn't it bit off that ''Summary'' is presenting a view, which was criticized by the author? OR am i over analyzing?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Not over analyzing, perhaps, but missing that the manner in which these artists were forward-looking can also be called "anticipating." The use of that word in answer B doesn't refer to the use of the same word early in the passage, but to the similar concept discussed in the third paragraph.

To anticipate means more than just to predict something before it happens, or expect it to occur. It also means to be one of the first to do something. That's how it's being used in the correct answer choice.