Q26 - Columnist on the arts: My

[soyeonjeon]

I actually found this to be difficult.
Why would D and E be wrong?
I picked E.

Thanks for your help.

[james.h.meyers]

I actually found this to be difficult.
Why would D and E be wrong?
I picked E.

Thanks for your help.

I was wondering about (E), but I think it's just because it's too strong. You could apply that rationale to anything - 'you don't like it then leave.'

(D) I think is too out of scope and/or similar to (E) this rationale could be used for anything.

(B) is only applicable to legitimately funding activities AND it connects the idea of something being funded broadly (the arts) versus something particular being funded (an art piece people don't like).

At least this is how I see it.

[tommywallach]

Hey All,

First off, I hate this question. I think that LSAT wouldn't have this question anymore (keep in mind, this is test 24, from many may years ago), because the language in the correct answer is a little too far from the passage.

Let's take this from top to bottom. It's a Principle: Support question, so we start by looking at the core:

Conclusion: No taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars pay for art they hate

Premise: Taxpayers had to pay for art they hate

As you can see, the premise here is mega boring. We need a principle that links "justice" to "paying for art you hate."

(A) This would weaken the argument. If taxpayers should be allowed to decide, then it is unjust for them to have that decision made for them.

(B) CORRECT. This answer comes the closest to linking anything to justice. If something is warranted, it is justifiable (there's our justice!). In other words, if the arts (in general) are legitimately funded, then every instance of that funded art (even some art that people hate) is legitimate/warranted/justifiable.

(C) This answer brings in the issue of the majority, but the argument never discussed that. Even if there were only one person who hated a particular work of art, we want to know if it would be unjust for that person to be forced to pay for such art.

(D) This is fair enough, but it's a normative statement (people should do X), so it has no bearing on things as written.

(E) This, to me, is the tricky answer. The reason it's wrong is that you could still argue that it isn't just to tell people that if they don't like how their money is spent, they can just move to another country. (Which, in LSAT'S defense, is pretty darn true!).

Hope that helps! (I still hate it.)

-t

[WaltGrace1983]

I also do not like this question at all. I will explain why. I also would like someone to discuss this question more so that I can solidify my understanding.

Some artists have produced works of art that are morally/aesthetically offensive to many taxpayers
→
No taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund this work they don't like

What is the gap? The gap is that it is completely okay that the money provided by some people is used for things that they don't agree with. Let's say I give money to candidate X in the 2016 election and candidate X uses that money to buy a million dollar popcorn machine (sounds awesome). I may hate popcorn machines but the author is concluding that "it doesn't matter! The candidate can do what they want with it!" This is what I am going into the answer choices with

(A) This would actually hurt the argument. If taxpayers "should be allowed to decide" then this would imply that they could stop having this money used for the art. But that won't be stopping, as the argument shows. Therefore, this directly goes against the argument

(C) "Supported by the majority of their constituents." Who said anything about a majority vote? Maybe, according to this government, if only one official likes the art then it must be the case that the government funds it. We don't need a majority! At least we don't need a majority according to the stimulus.

(D) Yea okay but does this connect anything to being treated unjustly? All this is saying is, "if you don't like it, just vote against the people that made these decisions!" This may be a good way to handle it in the real world but it doesn't answer the question of whether or not the taxpayers were treated unjustly

(E) I thought this was tempting too. However, the part that I don't like is the idea of "complaining." The argument is never saying they have no right to complain, just that they are not treated unjustly. The officials might say, "complain all you want!" We don't know otherwise.

(B) Okay let's begin with what is right about this answer:

"The funding of a particular activity is warranted if"
This looks great. The "if" shows that we just discovered the conclusion of the answer choice. This conclusion matches up to the conclusion in the overall argument. Beautiful so far.

"If it is funded by elected representatives who legitimately fund that activity in general."

Hmmm.

Is funded by the elected representatives? Not exactly. You can say that it is funded the taxpayers or funded by the government. It was this wording that threw me off and it is this wording that makes me think the answer choice is a little shaky. Okay yea, I guess is the best answer. I just feel a little unsatisfied by it and I'm glad others have felt similarly.

[Mab6q]

I was wondering if someone could go over identifying the core here. I usually have no problem doing this but this argument through we up.

I wasn't sure if the first claim was the argument or last claim. i know it might seem silly because it says "my conclusion" but I thought that might be an intermediate conclusion supporting the first statement.

They have not been treated unjustly --> were well within rights to vote to support.

I'm also not seeing how the premise you guys used actually functions as a premise?

Thanks.

[tommywallach]

Hey Mab,

I identified the core above. The conclusion is stated baldly. The premise is SO BAD (the gap so big) that I see your complaint, but that doesn't change the fact that it's functioning as a premise. If I say:

I have twenty dollars, so you're a jerk

We know what the premise is. It's "I have twenty dollars." The fact that this is a stupid argument is irrelevant to the pieces themselves.

-t

[jwms]

I actually think (E) is wrong because of the term shift involving the word 'complain'. People can be treated justly (or, not unjustly), and still complain. This answer choice goes too far in prohibiting people; there's a difference between people not being treated unjustly and those people complaining.