Q7 - The stated goal of the government's

[richromano]

Just checking to see if my choice is correct:

Chose answer E: A contemporary work of art that does not reflect the independent artistic conscience of the artist cannot be a work of true artistic excellence.

*******************

P1> Funding program goal is to encourage works of artistic excellence.

P2> Gov't funded artwork can never reflect independent artistic conscience of the artist any artist accepting financial support will only try to please those who distribute the fund.

Assumption> (E): A contemporary work of art that does not reflect the independent artistic conscience of the artist cannot be a work of true artistic excellence.

C> Beton: Gov't funding of the arts cannot lead to creation of works of artistic excellence

[ohthatpatrick]

Looks good!

The Senator's reasoning is essentially

Premise --> Subsidiary Conclusion --> Main Conclusion

Prem:
Artists try to please those who give them money
thus,
Subsid. Conc:
Govt-funded artwork can't reflect the artist's conscience
thus,
Main Conc:
Govt.-funded artwork will never be truly excellent.

(E) addresses the gap between the subsidiary conclusion and the main conclusion.

[for fun: if this question appeared later in the LR section, it might go for the sneakier link between the Premise and Subsid. Conc and give you a valid answer such as "An artwork will not reflect the artist's independent conscience if the artists is trying to please the source of his/her financial support."]

=== other answers ===
(A) the "interest of taxpayers" is out of scope, and the word "most" is wrong 99% of the time you see it in Necessary Assumption.

(B) this makes an unnecessary comparison between "how generous" govt. funding is vs. other types of funding. other types of funding is classic "out of scope".

(C) Somewhat tricky, but the govt. can encourage the creation of works of artistic excellence without having to believe that there is broad agreement as to what that it is. Similarly, the Senator can make a claim denying that govt-funded work is artistically excellent without having to believe that there is broad agreement as to what that standard is. Finally, "the distribution of funds" being based on the broad agreement of excellence goes beyond anything mentioned.

(D) There's no reason the Senator has to assume this extreme, sweeping claim. The Senator only has to assume that if an artist produced works of true excellence and then began to accept govt. funding, the subsequent artworks would no longer be truly excellent.

[WaltGrace1983]

(D) There's no reason the Senator has to assume this extreme, sweeping claim. The Senator only has to assume that if an artist produced works of true excellence and then began to accept govt. funding, the subsequent artworks would no longer be truly excellent.

Could (D) potentially be a sufficient assumption though?

Artists try to please those who control financial support
→
Govt-funded artwork doesn't reflect artist's conscience
→
Govt. funds cannot lead to works of true artistic excellence

(D): Accept govt. funding → ~Works of true artistic excellence. Wouldn't this close up the gap completely? I guess you might be able to make the argument that govt. funding could still lead to works of artistic excellence because perhaps the govt. funding actually funded the work of artistic excellence and then, upon its completion, the artist just never decided to use the govt. funds ever again. Though I am not sure.

[ohthatpatrick]

Hmm, there are a couple problems with that thought.

You were asking whether this would be an airtight argument:
p1: Artists try to please those who control financial support
+
p2: Govt-funded artwork doesn't reflect artist's conscience
+
SA: Accept govt. funding → ~Works of true artistic excellence.
=====
conc: Govt. funds cannot lead to works of true artistic excellence


It would not. First of all the first two premises have no value whatsoever to this argument. They don't chain onto anything in the conclusion or to the "Sufficient Assumption".

So really you're just asking does the conditional
"produced excellent art --> never accept funding"
allow us to prove
"govt. funding can't lead to excellent art"

It doesn't for the reason you stated (it's a verb tense issue).

IF they accept funding, then they have NEVER BEFORE produced excellent art.

But accepting that funding could still lead them to produce excellent art, at which point, according to the rule, they would never accept funding again.

(The other problem with calling (D) a sufficient assumption is that we still wouldn't have proven that "funding of the arts is a burden on taxpayers", which was part of the conclusion).

Hope this helps.

[ltownsjr]

I initially chose (E), but I eventually went with (C) because I saw the word "contemporary". Is this one of situations where you should just let the stimulus be in the earlier part of the test? In other words, should I give the authors latitude in terms of wording for the first few questions?