Text 1:Dr. Elena Vasquez has established herself as a leading authority on contemporary Central American art through two decades of...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Dr. Elena Vasquez has established herself as a leading authority on contemporary Central American art through two decades of scholarly research. Her publications are widely cited, her exhibition recommendations have consistently proven prescient as featured artists gained international recognition, and major museums regularly seek her consultation on acquisition decisions involving regional contemporary works.
Text 2:
When the Metropolitan Museum's acquisition committee recently declined to purchase works Dr. Vasquez had enthusiastically recommended, citing budget constraints, internal communications revealed different reasoning. Committee members privately questioned whether her "specialized regional focus" aligned with the museum's "universal artistic standards," ultimately allocating the same budget to acquire a minor piece by an established European master.
Based on the two texts, how would the author of Text 1 most likely characterize the committee's actual reasoning?
As financially responsible, since museums must balance specialized advice with broader collection goals
As professionally appropriate, given acquisition committees' need to maintain institutional independence
As reflecting institutional bias toward established art over specialized regional expertise
As strategically sound, because universal standards create more coherent museum collections
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Dr. Elena Vasquez has established herself as a leading authority on contemporary Central American art through two decades of scholarly research." |
|
| "Her publications are widely cited, her exhibition recommendations have consistently proven prescient as featured artists gained international recognition, and major museums regularly seek her consultation on acquisition decisions involving regional contemporary works." |
|
| "When the Metropolitan Museum's acquisition committee recently declined to purchase works Dr. Vasquez had enthusiastically recommended, citing budget constraints," |
|
| "internal communications revealed different reasoning." |
|
| "Committee members privately questioned whether her 'specialized regional focus' aligned with the museum's 'universal artistic standards,'" |
|
| "ultimately allocating the same budget to acquire a minor piece by an established European master." |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: The Metropolitan Museum publicly claimed budget issues when declining Dr. Vasquez's recommendations, but internal communications revealed they actually questioned her regional expertise in favor of established European art.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? How would the author of Text 1 most likely characterize the committee's actual reasoning (not their stated reasoning)?
What type of answer do we need? The Text 1 author's likely perspective/judgment on the committee's true motivations
Any limiting keywords? "author of Text 1" - we need to think from the perspective of someone who presented Vasquez as highly credible; "actual reasoning" - focusing on the private concerns, not the budget excuse
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The author of Text 1 spent the entire passage building up Dr. Vasquez's credibility - showing her research is respected, her recommendations prove correct, and major museums value her judgment
- From this author's perspective, the committee's dismissal of her "regional focus" for not meeting "universal standards" would seem problematic, especially since they had the budget all along and chose a European work instead
- The Text 1 author would likely see this as the committee having a bias against regional expertise in favor of established (European) art, rather than making a truly merit-based decision
As financially responsible, since museums must balance specialized advice with broader collection goals
- This suggests the reasoning was "financially responsible"
- But Text 2 shows they had the same budget and spent it anyway - no actual financial constraint
- The Text 1 author established Vasquez's proven track record, so dismissing her advice wouldn't seem financially wise
As professionally appropriate, given acquisition committees' need to maintain institutional independence
- This frames the dismissal as "professionally appropriate"
- Text 1's author demonstrated Vasquez's professional credibility through citations, proven recommendations, and museum consultations
- From this perspective, dismissing such established expertise wouldn't seem professionally sound
As reflecting institutional bias toward established art over specialized regional expertise
- This identifies the reasoning as reflecting "institutional bias toward established art over specialized regional expertise"
- Perfectly matches how Text 1's author would view it: they established Vasquez's regional expertise as valuable and proven
- The committee's preference for "universal standards" and choice of European art over her regional recommendations would seem biased from this perspective
As strategically sound, because universal standards create more coherent museum collections
- This calls the reasoning "strategically sound" because "universal standards create more coherent collections"
- The Text 1 author established that Vasquez's specialized knowledge leads to successful outcomes (artists gaining recognition)
- From this author's view, dismissing proven expertise for abstract "coherence" wouldn't seem strategic