PT105.S1.Q13

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2
Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3
Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4
Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

PrepTest 105 - Section 1 - Question 13

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

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.

Describe Method of Reasoning

This argument only has one premise: the fact that other artists would be able to receive a subsidy if the successful author repaid the funds. Though the author clearly makes certain assumptions in going from this premise to the conclusion, for this question, we're just interested in examining the argument descriptively. The author establishes his conclusion about a successful artist's moral obligation to repay a subsidy by appealing to the sole premise that potential benefits will come to other artists if the successful artist repays those funds.

Analysis by ArdaschirArguelles

Show answer

13.

The passage tries to establish ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████

this person has █████████ ████ █████ ████████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ██ ███ ████

The author never says that an artist’s moral obligation is based on other people’s past actions, and we don't know how the initial subsidy was funded. Since the author's entire argument is based on potential benefit to future artists, this argument would still work even if the successful artist's subsidy had been funded entirely by taxpayers or some other source, and not from past artists repaying their own subsidies.

acting this way █████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ █ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████

This is accurate. The only premise the author offers for his conclusion about an artist's moral obligation is that, if the subsidy is repaid, other deserving artists will have access to the same source of support that the first artist received.

this person had ██ █████ ██ ██ ███████ █████ ████ █ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███

The author does not say anything about an artist making a promise, tacit or otherwise, to repay the funds before being granted the subsidy. The only premise the author offers for his conclusion is that other artists will be able to benefit if the successful artist repays the funds.

not acting this ███ █████ ██ █ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ █ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ███

The author doesn't say anything about short- and long-term benefits or detriments.

this person, by ██████ ████ ████ █████ ███████ ███████ ████████ ████ █ █████ █████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ███

The author doesn't make any comparisons between the value of "general benefits" to other artists versus the cost to the successful artist of repaying the subsidy.

Difficulty

Question

98% of people who answer get this correct

This is a low-difficulty question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 123

131

75% 139

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Method of reasoning or descriptive

Stems that ask us to articulate, in abstract terms, the structure of the argument in the stimulus.

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

156

98%

165

150

—

157

Question history

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!