Ross: Many governments have attempted to regulate strictly or even outlaw theater because of its subversive power. ████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ████████ ███████ ██████ ████████ ██████ ███████ ███ █████████████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ███ █████ ████ ████████ █████ █████ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████
The author believes that making playwrights and performers employees of the government is an effective strategy for governments to (1) control theater and (2) satisfy the public. Why does the author think this strategy will work?
Because the reasons previous attempts to regulate theater haven't worked are likely the public's desire for entertainment and playwrights' criticism of governments. In addition, we know that if they are employed by the government, playwrights won't criticize the government.
The author gives us two reasons that previous attempts to control theater have failed: the public wants theater for entertainment and playwrights criticize governments that treat them harshly. But do you notice that the author's solution, which is to make playwrights employees of the government, seems designed to address only one of those reasons? Sure, making them employees will guarantee that they won't criticize the government...but what about the public's desire for theater as entertainment? Will this strategy adequately satisfy that desire? This argument fails to address this issue.
To weaken the argument, we want to provide information that suggests making playwrights and performers employees of the government might not satisfy the public's desire for entertainment.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ █████ ████ ██████ ██████ █████████
Few governments are ███████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ███ ███████████
(A) suggests not many government are willing to use the strategy described by the author. But whether governments are willing to use the strategy is a separate issue from whether the strategy can be effective. We care about whether the strategy, if used, would work, not whether governments would actually use it.
Even when completely ████████████ ███████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █ ███████████
This tries to minimize the harm to governments from leaving theaters unregulated. It's trying to suggest that governments might not need to worry too much about regulating theater. But whether governments need to or should worry about regulating theater is a separate issue from whether a particular strategy for regulating theater is effective. We care about whether the author's strategy would work to control theater and satisfy the public, not about whether governments need to or should be worried about controlling theater.
Some dramatists criticize █████ ███████████ ████ ██████ █████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ████████
This doesn't affect the argument, because we already have a premise establishing that making dramatists honored employees of the government would guarantee those dramatists won't criticize the government. So the fact some dramatists criticize governments that don't treat them harshly wouldn't matter in a world where we're using the author's strategy.
Most theatrical productions ███████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███
(D) suggests that most theater is apolitical, or at least doesn't show support or criticism for the government. One way to interpret the impact of this is that it suggests theater doesn't present a significant problem for governments. But this point is irrelevant, as described in (B). Whether theater is as big a problem as some governments might fear has no bearing on whether the author's strategy is effective for controlling theater and satisfying the public. We care about whether the author's strategy will work if used, not about whether governments need to or should try to control theater.
The public generally ████████ █████ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██████████
This weakens the argument by providing a reason the author's strategy might not satisfy the public's demand for entertainment. Remember, the author's conclusion asserts that making playwrights employees of the government would satisfy the public. But if the public actually dislikes plays written or performed by government employees, that's strong reason to think the author's strategy will fail to achieve that purpose.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic