PrepTest 105, Section 1, Question 13
If an artist receives a public subsidy to(63 more words not shown)
The passage tries to establish(6 more words not shown)
- Athis person has(12 more words not shown)
- Bacting this way(19 more words not shown)
- Cthis person had(14 more words not shown)
- Dnot acting this(24 more words not shown)
- Ethis person, by(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I'd welcome an extra thousand dollars. That doesn't mean you have a moral obligation to send it to me. So when the author says repayment would be welcome, I still want an explanation of why the artist owes it.
To be fair, the argument is more specific than “someone would like the money.” The artist received public support, succeeded, and can now return the money so other deserving artists can receive support too.
I can see the benefit of that arrangement. I can also question whether the benefit, by itself, establishes a duty to repay a subsidy that was already given.
What we’re looking for
We aren't asked to fix that gap. We're asked how the passage tries to establish the obligation. My prediction is that it points to the benefit repayment would provide for other artists. Keep the direction straight: this artist's payment would help future recipients obtain the kind of support this artist received.
Working the answers
- A
This would look backward: earlier artists repaid their subsidies, and those repayments enabled this artist to receive support. The passage never gives that funding history. It looks forward to what this artist's repayment could make possible for others.
- BCorrect
Repaying the subsidy would give the agency money to support other deserving artists, just as this artist received support. That is the benefit the author uses to argue for the obligation. Describing the argument accurately doesn't require agreeing that this benefit is enough to create a moral duty.
- C
A tacit promise is an implied promise rather than an explicitly spoken one. Such a promise might provide a different basis for an obligation, but the passage doesn't say the artist made one. It appeals to helping other artists, not to honoring an earlier commitment.
- D
This would argue that keeping the money helps the artist briefly but hurts that same artist over time. We aren't given that personal tradeoff. The benefit the passage identifies goes to other artists who could receive subsidies, not to the original artist's long-term welfare.
- E
The passage identifies a benefit without comparing its value with the artist's cost. If the artist returns a dollar, the author doesn't say that doing so produces more than a dollar's worth of benefit. E adds a cost-benefit calculation that the argument never performs. B describes the simpler point actually made: repayment enables similar support for others.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.