Paglen’s work deftly limns the boundaries between art and scholarship, while also suggesting a provocative conjunction of politics and tourism. His unassuming prose requires visitors to read between the lines in order to generate their own interpretations and conclusions. Even if the truth is out there, as Paglen’s work argues implicitly, finding answers is not an easy task. As access to unalloyed truth seems increasingly to occupy an elusive position on an infinitely receding horizon, Paglen’s rare type of work becomes ever more important. A responsible citizenry may no longer rely (if indeed it ever could) on official pronouncements from corporate and governmental press offices. Instead, those who wish to educate themselves about the world must function as detectives or journalists, following threads and triangulating sources. Paglen’s work is exemplary for its insistent look at some of the things we may least want to admit about our government. And his method is ultimately pedagogical, proffering more questions than answers, along with hints about how to uncover the truth for ourselves, if only we have the nerve to do so.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which of the following statements?

The boundary between art and scholarship should be abolished.
The government should do more to communicate correct information to its people.
Paglen’s work advocates self-responsibility in terms of interpreting its message.




The author mentions the “infinitely receding horizon” primarily in order to

A. draw a parallel to Paglen’s lack of forthrightness
B. support the notion that long-range vision is crucial to setting goals
C. identify a commonality between politics and tourism
D. emphasize the difficulty involved in determining facts
E. indicate the universality of Paglen’s message