LSAT-2-4-1

1. A major art theft from a museum was remarkable in that the pieces stolen clearly had been carefully selected. The criterion for selection, however, clearly had not been greatest estimated market value. It follows that the theft was specifically carried out to suit the taste of some individual collector for whose private collection the pieces were destined.

The argument tacitly appeals to which one of the following principles?
(A) Any art theft can, on the evidence of the selection of pieces stolen, be categorized as committed either at the direction of a single known individual or at the direction of a group of known individuals.
(B) Any art theft committed at the direction of a single individual results in a pattern of works taken and works left alone that defies rational analysis.
(C) The pattern of works taken and works left alone can sometimes distinguish one type of art theft from another.
(D) Art thefts committed with no preexisting plan for the disposition of the stolen works do not always involve theft of the most valuable pieces only.
(E) The pattern of works taken and works left alone in an art theft can be particularly damaging to the integrity of the remaining collection.

先前的帖子说no preexisting plan错，应该选C，不理解，请NN解释一下。

no preexisting plan这个概念在题干中根本没出现过。

The stimulus argumentation is as follows:

Premise 1: A theft is selective.

Premise 2: The criterion for selection is the greatest estimated market value

Conclusion: The theft targets those pieces that can suit some individual collectors' taste.

I think option c support premise 1.

因为小偷偷的不是最值钱的东西，所以它偷的是为个别收藏者的。

C说的就是用所被偷的东西能分辨小偷的类型。

不是一个东西，但是我感觉这个题的思路是加强原文的论述

他这个推理建立在一个大原则上：窃贼对艺术品的选择是遵循一定标准的。（这个原则基本上事蕴含在the arguer says those pieces stolen have been carefully selected）

然后他否定一个标准，因此就推出窃贼一定遵循另一个标准。