Books about artwork, unless they are intended for a general audience, ought to include discussions of both the meaning behind the piece of art and the background of the artist who created that piece. If they do not, they are flawed. Gardener' s book on paintings of the Renaissance era describes the significance of the paintings, but fails to mention that the artist of several paintings discussed at length in the book is considered to be one of the greatest artists of all time. If the statements above are true, it would be necessary to establish which one of the following to conclude that Gardener's book is flawed? ["Gardener's descriptions of the meaning of the artists' paintings are inaccurate.", "Most prominent art historians agree that discussing an artist's critical reputation is essential to a complete portrayal of his or her background.", "The paintings discussed at length have some of the deepest meanings of those treated in Gardener's book.", "Gardener's book is intended for a general audience."]