The high cost of production is severely limiting which operas are available to the public. These costs necessitate re...
Brionna-CrawfordMarch 4, 2019
I don't understand
If they need corporate backers to put in the most famous shows how would they be able to only produce the most famous show? Isn't that contradictory to the passage. And I know that's the point but I am confused.
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Happy to help. The argument we're looking at is basically saying that corporate sponsors demand that only famous operas are produced. This is probably so that they can make their money back from investments. From this, it's likely that famous operas get lots of ticket sales, whereas operas that aren't famous may not get the same volume of ticket sales. But, how can opera production companies expect to be able to produce less famous operas if they are to rely entirely on ticket sales and donations from individuals for funding? The author is assuming that less famous operas will still sell enough tickets and get enough revenue from ticket sales and individual donations to cover costs and make this feasible. This is a pretty large assumption to make.
The question asks, "Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?"
(C) says, "Without the support of large corporate sponsors, opera companies could not afford to produce any but the most famous of operas."
If (C) is true, the author's argument is weakened because the author's goal of not using large corporate sponsors was so that the production companies could make less famous operas. However, if (C) is true, then the author's argument would not hold because it would not be feasible for production companies to produce operas by simply relying on ticket sales and individual donations.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you'd like any further clarification!
