Self-paced
If an artist receives a public subsidy to support work on a specific project—e.g., making a film—and if this project then proves successful enough to allow the artist to repay the subsidy, is the artist then morally obliged to do so. ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ███████ █████████ ██ ██████ ██████████
Summarize Argument
The author asks whether artists who receive public subsidies for a project are morally obliged to repay those subsidies if that project is sufficiently successful. He concludes that they are morally obligated, based on the premise that returning the money would provide a source of support for other deserving artists.
14.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ████████████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████
a
An artist has █ █████ ████ ██ ████ █████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ██ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██ ███████████ ███████████
Incorrect. The argument isn't about artists "urging" or encouraging other artists to try to obtain public subsidies if their projects are likely to be financially successful in the future. The argument is about an artist who has already been financially successful repaying a subsidy to benefit other artists.
b
A financially successful ██████ ██████ ███████████ ████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █ ████████ ██ ████████ ██████
Incorrect. (B) is way too general, and doesn't bridge the premise → conclusion structure we described. Just saying that a financially successful artist should "acknowledge" that financial success doesn't come only from merit doesn't necessarily imply that a financially successful artist is morally obligated to repay any public subsidies received.
c
A subsidy should ██ ██████████ ██ ████████ █ ████ █████ ██████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████
Correct. Notice that this is stronger than what we pre-phrased to bridge the premise → conclusion gap. This tells us that an artist, or anyone else, is by default morally obligated to repay a subsidy from the minute they receive it, unless they are positively unable to repay it or the subsidizing agency isn't interested in being repaid.
So this certainly justifies the conclusion of the stimulus. We know the artist in this scenario has been financially successful, meaning this artist is able to repay the subsidy. And we know the money repaid is "welcome" to the agency as a source of subsidies for others — i.e., the agency isn't uninterested in repayment. It follows that the successful artist is morally obligated to repay the subsidy.
d
The provider of █ ███████ ██████ █████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ █████████ █████ █████ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ █████████ ██████████
Incorrect. The argument isn't about what providers of subsidies should do. It's about the moral obligations of people who have received subsidies.
e
An artist requesting █ ███████ ███ █ ███████████ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ █ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████ █ ████ ████ ██████
Incorrect. What an artist should be required to do before receiving a subsidy is irrelevant to the argument.