Q5 - The high cost of production

[willaminic]

Hi,

the stimulus is basically saying that corporations want only famous opera, but the author wants ticket box to control it as results of reducing production budget.

so if we want to weaken it, we have to say the corporations would still in charge....so why E or D is the wrong answer?

for B, it is about the desire of the corporation, i mean this just seems so vague.....and for c, i feel it actually strengths it...

please help me ...thank you so much....

[goriano]

so if we want to weaken it, we have to say the corporations would still in charge....so why E or D is the wrong answer?

I don't think that's correct. To weaken this argument we would have to challenge the conclusion that "reducing production budget to the point where operas could be supported solely by individuals will allow the public to see less famous operas."

(A) We don't care about the preferences of a FEW opera purchasers
(B) So what if the DESIRE of large corporate sponsors to support operas isn't reduced? We don't know whether this desire would translate to actual funding for operas. And even you interpret (B) as such, can't corporate sponsors still contribute to funding without there being a RELIANCE on them for that funding?
(C) Chose this based on POE, but am a little hazy on the reasoning. (C) states "If opera companies could afford to produce less famous operas then they would still need large corporate sponsorship support." Somehow I think it conflicts with the IF part of the conclusion, about being able to reduce production budgets to the point where we WOULDN'T need corporate sponsorship. Help!
(D) We don't care whether large corporate sponsors will or will not support opera productions. The conclusion is conditional, IF budgets can be reduced to the point where there is no need to rely on large corporate sponsors THEN ...
(E) Makes the same mistake as (D). Even if individuals can't match the donations of corporate sponsors, individuals might be able to cover all costs IF production budgets are reduced.

[ohthatpatrick]

The previous poster did a great job of explaining away A, D, and E.

I would add to our justification for getting rid of (B) that we don't care whether large corporate sponsors still have a DESIRE to sponsor. We evaluating whether denying them the ABILITY to sponsor would result in the public seeing less famous operas.

I agree that (C) at first feels like cheating ... are we just denying the IF condition from the conclusion?

Not really. The IF condition from the conclusion is that production budgets would be lowered so that box-office and private donations can cover it. Let's say, to make this more concrete, that we only take in $50,000 per show from box-office and private donations.

Fine, then our production budget is set at $50,000. Will we now be staging less famous operas?

No, according to (C). The only operas we could afford without corporate sponsors will be the most famous of operas. So, according to (C) our $50,000 budget will only help us to produce the most famous of operas.

What's hard about interpreting this answer choice correctly is how counterintuitive it seems to me: it's essentially implying that the most famous operas are cheaper to produce than less famous operas are.

(I tend to assume the opposite, even though there's no reason more famous has to mean more expensive.)

As a more general rule of thumb, if you're trying to weaken an argument that's expressed in conditional form ...
IF we do this thing, THEN we get this result

... the test will almost always weaken it with an answer that shows "even if you do this thing, you still WON'T get the result you're seeking".

So I was reading answers looking for, "Which one tells me that, following our plan, we WON'T get less famous operas?"

Seen in this light, only (C) is relevant. None of the others even discuss how famous the operas will be.

Hope this helps.

[KakaJaja]

I have an explanation to make C less weird....

Without the large corporations as sponsors, opera companies will rely solely on box-office receipts and individual donations. Probably famous operas generate more box-office receipts, so without large corporations, opera companies can only sustain by producing those most famous ones.

Does it make sense?

[WaltGrace1983]

What really simplified this for me was that we really don't care about the the large corporate sponsors given the stimulus's conditional.

It says IF we only rely on the individuals and ticket holders, THEN able to see less famous.

If we take the sufficient as a given (which we should in this case because its the premise of the argument), then we just need to show why the premise does NOT lead to the conclusion.

(A) is too weak. "A few" would do nothing for us here.

(B) We don't care about the corporate sponsors. For the purposes of this question, they are dead to us. Why? Because we are ONLY talking about the ticket holders and individuals. We need to show why what they would do is NOT SUFFICIENT. In other words, the argument says (donations / ticket holders → ability to see less famous operas). We want (donations / ticket holders → not necessarily the ability to see less famous operas.)

(D) Like (B), this doesn't matter!

(E) This is probably a given but HOW does the having less money AFFECT the plays seen?

(C) is the only one that comes close. It says that IF we rely on only those individuals/ticket holders THEN no ability to produce anything that's not famous.

It accepts the sufficient condition, but denies the necessary. This is a fabulous weakener.

[BackoftheEnvelope]

I have an explanation to make C less weird....

Without the large corporations as sponsors, opera companies will rely solely on box-office receipts and individual donations. Probably famous operas generate more box-office receipts, so without large corporations, opera companies can only sustain by producing those most famous ones.

Does it make sense?

I used a similar process. Perhaps they could afford to produce only the most famous operas because they need to break even. With corporate sponsors, however, they could take a hit by putting out less famous (i.e., less profitable) operas. (C) weakens the argument by pointing out one potential way in which the public still won’t be able to see less famous operas; satisfies the sufficient and denies the necessary condition of the conditional in the stimulus.

[seychelles1718]

goriano says the conclusion is in conditional (if budget is reduced....the public will see less famous operas), while Walt says the conclusion is that the public will be able to see less famous operas and takes the "if" part as the premise. Can anyone please clarify what the conclusion of the argument is?

[ohthatpatrick]

They're both saying the last sentence is the conclusion in a general sense.

But when the conclusion is a conditional, it's always the case that you're accepting the sufficient side (as you would a premise), but fighting the necessary side.

I think it would be weird to technically call the sufficient side a 'premise'. It's not a supporting idea. It's just qualifying the scope/range of whatever claim is actually being made in the necessary side.

But I, like Walt, would think of it as a premise. It's in the "can't touch this" zone of LSAT debating.

[ZLG870]

when they wanna make an opera, opera companies have to rent a place, pay for actors and playwrights, buy some costumes and ect. All of these cost these companies a lot. These expenses have to be paid for before the box-office receipts and donations from individuals. This means that opera companies have to find sponsorships first before the debut of their operas. This is just what C says. This is very similar to movie productions. A lot of movie companies who are impecunious have to find investors if they want to make their movies, because some movies may cost a billion dollars.