PrepTest 101, Section 3, Question 26
Columnist on the arts: My elected government representatives(63 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ATaxpayers should be(18 more words not shown)
- BThe funding of(19 more words not shown)
- CElected representatives are(16 more words not shown)
- DThose who resent(12 more words not shown)
- ESince taxpayers are(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The representatives were allowed to fund the arts. That doesn't mean every taxpayer has to like the art they fund.
Some people are offended by the resulting work. I can imagine a taxpayer saying, “My money helped pay for something I think is awful.” That's a real objection, but does it establish that the taxpayer was treated unjustly? The columnist says no. Disliking a publicly funded activity and being treated unfairly needn't be the same thing.
Still, the columnist needs a reason to make that distinction here. One possible defense is that authorized representatives can choose public projects even when particular taxpayers dislike the result. On that view, an individual's offense wouldn't by itself make the use of public funds unjust.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a principle that supports the columnist. My prediction is a rule explaining why being offended by the art doesn't mean the taxpayer was treated unjustly. Keep the conclusion in view: the question isn't whether the art is good, or what unhappy taxpayers should do next.
Working the answers
- A
This recommends giving taxpayers a choice about arts funding. It doesn't tell us whether the funding described in the passage treated anyone unjustly. We aren't told that taxpayers were offered the proposed choice, and the recommendation doesn't connect the representatives' existing authority to the columnist's conclusion.
- BCorrect
This supports the conclusion by connecting the general funding authority to the particular project. The representatives legitimately fund the arts in general. Under B's rule, their funding of a particular artistic activity is therefore warranted—that is, justified.
This isn't phrased exactly like my prediction about offense, but it supplies a reason for the columnist's position: the particular funding is justified by the representatives' legitimate authority over that activity. Taxpayers' dislike of the resulting art doesn't remove that stated justification. B uses the evidence the columnist actually gives to support the claim about this funding.
- C
We don't know whether a majority supports this activity. The passage tells us that many taxpayers are offended, which doesn't settle how the majority feels. More importantly, the representatives' right to fund the arts is already granted. We need support for moving from that general right to the conclusion about taxpayers and a particular work.
- D
Voting against the representatives is a possible response to dissatisfaction. But a person could have that option whether the original decision was fair or unfair. Advice about what to do next doesn't establish that the taxpayer has not already been treated unjustly.
- E
Having the option to leave a country doesn't establish that every government decision treats you fairly. E also concludes that people have no right to complain, while the columnist concludes that they weren't treated unjustly. Those are different claims. We need a principle supporting the fairness of this funding, not one dismissing complaints.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.