Critical Reasoning

During the nineteenth century, the French academy of
art was a major financial sponsor of painting and
sculpture in France; sponsorship by private individuals
had decreased dramatically by this time. Because the
academy discouraged innovation in the arts, there was
little innovation in nineteenth century French sculpture.
Yet nineteenth century French painting showed a
remarkable degree of innovation.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to
explain the difference between the amount of
innovation in French painting and the amount of
innovation in French sculpture during the nineteenth
century?
(A) In France in the nineteenth century, the French
academy gave more of its financial support to
painting than it did to sculpture.
(B) The French academy in the nineteenth century
financially supported a greater number of
sculptors than painters, but individual painters
received more support, on average, than
individual sculptors.
(C) Because stone was so much more expensive
than paint and canvas, far more unsponsored
paintings were produced than were
unsponsored sculptures in France during the
nineteenth century.
(D) Very few of the artists in France in the
nineteenth century who produced sculptures
also produced paintings.
(E) Although the academy was the primary sponsor
of sculpture and painting, the total amount of
financial support that French sculptors and
painters received from sponsors declined
during the nineteenth century.

I would choose C. I says that sculpting material was expensive for the academy to support, but painting material was not expensive and so obtainable, although the academy did not support paintings.

Why not A?? OA is C

punitkaur wrote:Why not A?? OA is C

Passage says:

During the nineteenth century, the French academy of
art was a major financial sponsor of painting and
sculpture in France

passage says:

Because the academy discouraged innovations in arts.


from those two, conclude that the academy was a sponsor of art, which included both sculpting and painting, and when it discouraged innovations in arts, it did so for both branches of art.
This makes sense because later in the passage we find out that sculpting decreased while painting increased, and that makes a paradoxical situation, making the question valid.

IMO C too.

imo c!

Premise 1: During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was a major financial sponsor of painting and sculpture in France
Premise 2: sponsorship by private individuals had decreased dramatically by this time.
Premise 3: Because the academy discouraged innovation in the arts, there was little innovation in nineteenth century French sculpture. Yet nineteenth century French painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation.

The paradox is though both the arts i.e painting and sculptor received sponsorship from French academy painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation whereas sculpture showed little innovation.

A>If this was true then there is no paradox at all. Painting received more patronage and hence greater innovation. Hence A cannot be the correct answer.

C is the correct answer. It clearly resolves the paradox pointing to the fact that stones needed for sculpture were more expensive when compared to canvas.Hence painting had greater degree of innovation.

here is my explanation

qtn says...if academy sponsored something then it should not have innovation..

so if innovation is there in something... this means sponsorship was not there for that thing..

This is explained in C

The official answer is C. But I don't understand why? Can anyone explain