The author's opinion can be best summarized in line 21-22 ("[Herbert's] arguments are not, finally, persuasive") and line 61-2 ("No art historian can afford to emphasize one ["subject*"] at the expense of the other"). We can expect the main point question to have something to do with this author's opinion so we can pre-phrase something here. Perhaps we could say something like, "Herbert's argument is unconvincing" as a possible element of the correct answer.
- ***By "subject," I am really referring to style vs. subject matter.
In addition, we must consider the passage map, or the structure of the argument. What does each paragraph do? The first paragraph introduces Herbert's views, the second paragraph provides point #1 for why Herbert's views are not persuasive, and the third paragraph provides point #3 for why Herbert's views are not persuasive. However, and I also mentioned this in the Passage Discussion, that last sentence is really tricky and I have a question about it. I'll just quote it from the passage discussion post...
That last sentence, "no art historian can afford to emphasize one at the expense of another," really threw me for a loop. Now I suspected that the entire passage was about how Herbert's argument is unpersuasive (I think #21 and #25 might back up this idea). However, it also seems like, within this sentence, the author developed a brand new viewpoint. This would be that we shouldn't interpret impressionist art by pure style or pure subject - we need to understand these paintings from the context of both style and subject. What is going on here?
With the author's opinion and the passage map in mind, let's attack these questions!
- (A) This is only a very small segment of what is actually being talked about. Where is Herbert? The author's criticism of his viewpoint has got to be in there, right?!
(B) Very good! However, it is a tad simplistic - I am expecting there to be a bit of info on why this is. Either way, this is my answer until I am proven otherwise because I got to be flexible!
(C) This is much too strong. The author doesn't say the historical context is not relevant at all! He basically said that style and context are both important! This is shown in the final sentence of the passage.
(D) This is getting into the foundation of Impressionism. We are not talking about how Impressionism developed. We want to know more about its interpretation.
(E) Future interpretation? I just stopped reading there. Eliminate.
(A), though a bit simple, is by far our best answer. Let's pick it and move on!
