Passage Summary: A critic argues that a woman shouldn't have won a criticism award for reviewing cars because cars are just useful objects, not art, and therefore reviewing them isn't real criticism.

Conclusion: Nan Paulsen should not have been granted the journalism award for criticism for her car reviews.

Reasoning: Criticism awards are for reviews of art, and since cars are functional tools rather than art, they do not reveal the cultural truths necessary for a review to qualify as criticism.

Analysis: The critic's argument hinges on a very narrow, elitist definition of what counts as 'criticism.' To justify this reasoning, we need a principle that cements the connection between art, cultural truths, and the definition of criticism. The argument assumes that if an object is utilitarian, it cannot be art, and if it's not art, it can't be 'criticized' in the award-winning sense. Look for a principle that explicitly states that an award for criticism should only be given to work that deals with objects capable of revealing cultural truths.