Author A never addresses this question, nor does she say anything at all about the quality of publicly funded art. This is enough reason to eliminate (A). Also, while author B does address this question, he doesn’t seem concerned with answering it. He thinks that public funding for the arts isn’t justifiable, even if it does guarantee better art.

Author A thinks that public funding for the arts will result in broader access to the arts. She never addresses the question of whether broader access will result in more diverse audiences. She just notes that attracting diverse audiences wouldn’t sufficiently justify public funding. This is enough reason to eliminate (B). Also, author B doesn’t say anything at all about audience diversity.

Both authors are concerned with answering this question. Author A concludes that public funding is a justifiable use of taxpayers’ money, since it serves the public interest by providing more equitable access to the arts and by building social capital. Author B concludes that it’s not a justifiable use of taxpayers’ money, since it won’t directly benefit the taxpayers or increase their enjoyment. He argues that this is because subsidized art “will not be the art that most taxpayers would have chosen for themselves.”

Author A seems to suggest that, when funded by the private sector alone, access to the arts isn’t distributed broadly enough. She thinks this justifies public funding for the arts. But it’s unclear whether she’s really “concerned with answering” the question of how broadly arts access is currently distributed. Also, author B isn’t concerned with the distribution of arts access; he thinks that income inequality doesn’t justify public arts subsidies.

Author A does address this question. She argues here that participation in the arts increases civic engagement. But author B doesn’t say anything about civic involvement at all, nor does he consider its relationship to arts participation.