PT105.S1.Q13 > Question

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

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

The author considers the question of 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.

The author suggests that the fact that other artists would be be able to receive a subsidy if the successful author repaid the funds--the premise--is enough to establish the successful artist's moral obligation to repay those funds--the author's conclusion.

The author does not suggest an artist’s moral obligation is based on other people’s past actions, nor does the stimulus say anything about how the subsidy was funded in the past. Since it is called a \"public\" subsidy, it's possible it initially came from taxpayer funds rather than a previous artist's contribution or repayment.

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.

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.

The author does not say anything about short- and long-term benefits or detriments.

The author does not compare the value of \"general benefits\" from repaying the subsidy versus the cost to the artist.

PrepTest 105 - Section 1 - Question 13

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action