Of course! The conclusion here is the last sentence, i.e. "if we reduce production budgets so that operas can be supported exclusively by box-office receipts and donations from individuals, then the public will be able to see less famous operas." How do we know that? Well the author supports this conclusion by telling us that the high cost of production "necessitate reliance on large corporate sponsors, who in return demand that only the most famous operas be produced."
We are being asked to weaken this argument so let's take a look at the answer choices:
(A) Irrelevant. The reason why a few opera ticket purchasers go to the opera does nothing to this argument. Few means some, so basically (A) is saying that at least one opera ticket purchaser goes to the opera for the sake of going as opposed to seeing specific operatic operations.
(B) Irrelevant. This argument is not about the desire of large corporate sponsors to support operas. This argument is about the public having access to less famous operas.
(C) Correct. This answer choice weakens the argument by pointing out that without large corporate sponsors, opera companies could not afford to produce any but the most famous of operas. As such, reducing production budgets in an effort to eliminate the reliance on large corporate sponsors, would not result in the public being able to see less famous operas.
(D) Irrelevant. Whether or not large corporate sponsors will continue to support opera productions if they are denied control over which operas will be produced has no bearing on this argument. In fact, the author wants operas to be supported exclusively by box-office receipts and donations from individuals.
(E) Irrelevant. The author is stating that we should reduce production budgets so the fact that individuals donations and box-office receipts cannot match the amounts of money obtained through sponsorship by large companies has no bearing on this argument. As long as these reduced budgets can be supported exclusively by box-office receipts and donations from individuals, the author's argument would still be valid.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
