Text 1: Aesthetician Dr. Mary Wells argues for aesthetic objectivism. "Some artworks are genuinely more beautiful than others," Wells writes. "Skilled critics recognize excellence. Beauty isn't merely in the eye of the beholder."
Text 2: Sociologist Dr. David Park studies taste formation. "Aesthetic preferences correlate strongly with social class," Park reports. "Elite education transmits 'cultivated' taste. What appears as objective discernment reflects social training."
How does Park's analysis challenge Wells's objectivism?
By showing art doesn't exist
By suggesting apparent objectivity might reflect socialized preferences
By claiming all critics are equally qualified
By arguing education is impossible
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Wells sees expert recognition of objective excellence. Park asks whether "cultivated taste" tracks objective beauty or just class-specific socialization. Same discernment, different explanation.
- Evidence: Park: aesthetic preferences reflect "social training."
- Reasoning: What looks like perception might be learned disposition.
- Conclusion: Park offers alternative explanation for what Wells calls objectivity.
Choice A is incorrect because Park studies art preferences. Choice C is incorrect because Park distinguishes elite training. Choice D is incorrect because Park studies education effects.