Explanation

Reading the question: we are presented with a thin argument. The first sentence gives an introduction and the second two sentences are argument. Since we have a pseudo-syllogistic argument, as we did in Drivers Over 30 and Taxes and Growth, we can analyze the argument using term matching:



The missing connection is between "lawbreaking" and what constitutes art. The author assumes that you can be an artist only if you're not a lawbreaker. The clause, "painting graffiti is inherently an act of rebellion and lawbreaking," may sound like an opinion, but it's a piece of evidence in this argument.

Applying our filter: answer choices (A) through (D) all touch on both graffiti and the law in some fashion. The one that matches our expectation most closely is (D). It doesn't use the word lawbreaking, but it hits on the key matter, the conditional definition of art: it's not art if the maker is a rebel.

Logical proof: we can prove our answer using the second step of the Critical Reasoning Strategy, logical proof. We apply the negation test. If the statement in choice (D) not true--it's art regardless of whether the creator is a rebel or whether it's legal or why it's done--then the argument in the prompt crumbles. That's proof that the argument assumes the statement in choice (D). The correct answer is (D).