Passage Summary: Because abstract art doesn't show real-world objects and political art needs to show clear examples of unfairness to get people moving, abstract art can't be political.

Conclusion: Abstract painting is incapable of being a politically significant form of art.

Reasoning: Abstract art is nonrepresentational and valued only for its aesthetics, whereas spurring political action requires the clear representation of social injustice.

Analysis: The critic's argument relies on a significant 'Gap' between the ability to spur political action and the broader category of being 'politically significant.' The argument assumes that if a work of art cannot represent social injustice to spur action, it cannot be politically significant in any other way. We are looking for a Necessary Assumption that bridges this gap, likely stating that representing social injustice is the only way for art to achieve political significance. Ask yourself: what if art could be politically significant just by challenging traditional aesthetics?