Q3

[ptraye]

Again, I chose the correct answer, but I want more clarification. In lines 51-54, why is there mention of "the Harlem school of painters and the styles of his native Leiden"?

[ohthatpatrick]

Most RC questions that have the form:
"the author brings up ____ in order to"
"the author's reference to ____ serves to"
"the author discusses ____ primarily to"

have a very consistent pattern. I think of them as the "bookend idea" questions. They ask about a specific detail, but the correct answer reinforces the big idea that either came right before (80% of the time) or right after the specific detail.

In a few instances, such as this one, the correct answer reinforces the main point OF THAT PARAGRAPH.

Here, the author brought up Haarlem and Leiden in the 2nd to last sentence to bring home the point he introduced in lines 36-38 (really, the main point of the passage).

While Alpers' discussion of Claudius Civilis was consumed by concerns with Rembrandt's monetary motives, our author thinks that Alpers SHOULD have been talking as well about how that work represented where Rembrandt was at as an artist ("the aesthetic qualities that make Rembrandt's work unique").

So the author's (god-awful) mention of the pictorial dialectic between Haarlem and Liesden is the author's example of the sort of ARTISTIC analysis he wishes Alpers had been doing more of.

--- other answers ----

a) author isn't complaining that "many critics have neglected", just that Alpers neglected to do so
b) nothing justifies comparing CC to 'many' 17th century paintings ... all we could say is that CC suggests at least some influence from the Haarlem school and native Lieden
c) 'not affected' is too harsh ... the author is saying the influences Alpers points out are only PART of the story, not the whole story.
d) 'best be understood' is too extreme and there's no reason to pick Leiden vs. Haarlem in this dialectic.
e) lines 36-38 + the last line of the passage

[ptraye]

thanks, i understand.