CAT Critical Reasoning Practice question with Solution 33

The author in this one doesn’t think much of the political sagacity of artists. Still, she’s careful not to issue a blanket condemnation. She says there is “little” point in looking to artists for political insight, not no point. She says “when taken as a whole” artists’ statements indicate that artistic talent and political insight are “rarely” found together, not never found together. And, most important to us, she says that “most” artists have political views that are less insightful than the views of reasonably well-educated people who aren’t artists, not that all artists have such views. Well, if she doesn’t hold that all artists have less insightful political views than any reasonably well-educated person, she must hold that some artists do hold political views that are just as insightful as the views of some reasonably well-educated person. Thus, based on the passage, we can infer (E).

(A) is too strong; as we’ve seen, the author is careful not to say that absolutely no artists have political insight.

(B) The author compares artists to “any reasonably well-educated person” but never says that art alone could make a person reasonably well-educated; indeed, the author is more interested in drawing a contrast between artists and “reasonably well-educated” people.

(C) is again too extreme. The author only spoke of “most” artists falling short of any reasonably well-educated person in terms of political insight, which implies that some artists do indeed make the grade.

(D) involves a scope shift. The author spoke of the rarity of finding political insight and artistic talent together. Now, having political insight is not the same thing as being a politician. It may be true that plenty of politicians lack political insight (which implies some profound understanding of the issues); in fact, I’m sure you could think of many examples. These uninsightful politicians might have loads of artistic talent. So (D) can’t be inferred.