Art critic: The Woerner Journalism Award for criticism was given to Nan Paulsen for her reviews of automobiles. This ...

Skylar on December 15, 2019

@nivensdc, maybe I can help here.

This is a strengthen question, so we're looking for an answer that will ultimately support the art critic's argument.

The art critic claims that the Woerner Journalism Award for criticism should not have been given to Nan Paulsen. The art critic states that the award should be given to criticism, and Paulsen's reviews were not criticism. She attributes this to the reviews being about cars, which are not works of art and therefore do not reveal important truths about culture.

When we breakdown this passage, we may see a disconnect between the art critic's idea of criticism and the phrase "do not reveal important truths about culture." We can anticipate that the correct answer will address this.

(A) is incorrect because the passage never states that Paulsen portrayed cars as objects of art; it only states that they are not.
(B) is correct because it connects the premise to the argument's conclusion in a clear way. Following this, Paulsen's work could not be considered criticism because she focused on cars, which are not art and therefore do not reveal cultural truths, which is a necessary element for a review of an object to be considered criticism. This connects the whole argument together so that it flows logically, thereby supporting the reasoning in the passage.
(C) is incorrect because we are not concerned with why the review was written. Moreover, the passage says it is the works of art - not the reviews - that reveal cultural truths.
(D) is incorrect because the passage says nothing about how Paulsen views herself.
(E) is incorrect because it is the works of art, not the criticism, that are discussed as revealing important truths.

Does that make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions and best of luck with your studies!