Passage Summary: Because some famous old art used to make people angry, we should use taxpayer money to fund new art that makes people angry today.

Conclusion: The government should not be reluctant to provide public funding for art that is considered shocking.

Reasoning: Historically, many works now considered great masterpieces were initially met with public outrage and derision.

Analysis: The historian is making a leap from 'great art was once shocking' to 'we should fund shocking art.' The 'Gap' here is the assumption that being shocking is a reliable indicator of value, or at least that shocking art is worthy of the same support as 'great' art. To find the necessary assumption, we must find a bridge between the historical fact of outrage and the normative claim about funding. If it weren't true that shocking art could be valuable or deserving of support, the historian's appeal to Stravinsky and Manet would be irrelevant to modern funding decisions.