We can prove A to be wrong with the first sentence of the second passage. We know that the author of A thinks that they are beneficial, but the author of B, who opposes subsidies, admits they do provide some incidental benefits in their first sentence.
JosephRoccoon August 19, 2022
Hi Emil,
Piggybacking off of the last post, I picked Answer Choice "D". I can see why "A" feels like a better choice; however, D was tempting and so I picked it. Author A seemed to favor tax subsidized art when he says "But public support of the arts is, in fact, eminently justifiable. Left to the private sector alone, opportunities to share in a region's cultural life will not be distributed equitably." So Author A clearly opposes private funding. But then Author B says, "Tax-funded arts subsidies admittedly provide some incidental benefits, such as increasing tourism. Yet a justification for such subsidies must show a direct benefit to taxpayer's money." Am I interpreting this incorrectly as Author B favoring private funds over government subsidized too much?
Sincerely,
Joe Rocco
joseph.rocco21@yahoo.com
Emil-Kunkinon September 1, 2022
Hi Joe,
You're completely right that A supports public funding and that B opposes it, however, neither of their arguments hinge on the idea that their preferred funding method will guarantee higher quality art.
A argues that private funding will lead to unequal access to art. This is not saying that it will lead to bad art, but rather that only some people will be able to see it. Likewise, B actually suggests that there might be some possibility that public funding could lead to better art (middle of their first paragraph), although B clearly prefers private funding. I think your interpretation is correct, D is wrong because of the wording of the answer choice.
