A major art theft from a museum was remarkable in that the pieces stolen clearly had been carefully selected. The cri...

shunhe on August 17, 2020

Hi @Bianca-Hayles,

Thanks for the question! So let’s go through this stimulus first. We’re told about a major art theft from a museum where the pieces was carefully selected. But the criteria wasn’t based on how much each painting was worth (in dollars). And so the argument concludes that the theft was carried out to suit some individual collector’s taste who wanted those specific pieces.

Now we’re asked for a principle to which this argument appeals. In other words, we’re looking for some general rule that seems to be being followed in this argument. Take a look at (C), which tells us that the pattern of works taken and works left alone can sometimes distinguish one type of art theft from another. Well, that’s kind of the rule being used here, right? Since the author makes a conclusion about the type of art theft (for a private collector) based exclusively on which works were taken/left behind. So (C) sums up a principle at play in the stimulus pretty well, and is the correct answer.

Now let’s take a look at (B), which tells us that the principle is that any art theft committed at the direction of a single individual results in a pattern of works taken and works left alone that defies rational analysis. Well, that’s actually kind of against what the author’s doing, right? Because the author is using rational analysis based on which paintings were removed/left behind in order to come to a conclusion about what type of theft it was. And so (B) can’t be the right answer, since it goes against what the author’s doing.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

Bianca-Hayles on August 18, 2020

Thank you very much, Shunhe. This was beyond helpful. I appreciate your detailed explanation greatly.

shunhe on August 18, 2020

Of course, I'm glad you found it helpful! Let us know any other questions you have.