by ohthatpatrick Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:53 am
When we see a "suggests/implies/inferred" question stem, the keywords MAY lead us to the proof sentence that matches up with the correct answer, but sometimes the proof sentence is a good bit away from the keyword sentence.
I agree, based on the keywords here, I would initially look at the beginning of the 1st paragraph, where I remember "the country" being mentioned.
However, nothing there says that litigation surrounding reclaiming stolen art is "less common than Burke fears" / "increasing" / "a serious threat" / "a signal of frustration" / "increasing".
All we could infer from paragraph 1 is that current laws in that country allow for at least some uncertainty (since the legislature is designed to reduce uncertainty).
====
It's worth saying at this point that SOME correct answers to suggests/implies/inferred questions are testing individual sentences (and even inconsequential details). Other correct answers to these questions are just testing the big ideas of the passage. These correct answers won't match up with any one sentence as well as they will match up with our overall understanding of the main point/purpose of the passage.
(A) is an example of this latter type of correct answer. The actual line reference is 25-27. But this answer should remind us of the author's overall point/purpose, which is to say, "This new legislation is crazy. It's trying to protect art owners from a problem that doesn't really exist; meanwhile, it's making it practically impossible for people who had their art stolen to legally reclaim it."
If you didn't come away with that impression of the passage, try reading it again to see if you can see where I'm getting that from.
== other answer ==
(B) this legislation is being considered, but the passage acts like the legislation is already having an effect
(C) the author does NOT think that litigation to reclaim stolen art is a serious threat to museums, so this goes against the passage
(D) "legitimate frustration" indicates that the author agrees with the overall spirit behind this legislation, but the point of the passage is to disagree with the legislation
(E) the author does NOT think that litigation is a growing problem. Lines 25-27 go against this.
Hope this helps.