The columnist's conclusion is: "no taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund some particular work of art that they may find abominable." Why? The columnist states that "My elected government representatives were within their rights to vote to support the arts with tax dollars, even though some artists have produced works of art that are morally or aesthetically offensive to many taxpayers."
We are looking for an answer choice that has a principle that supports the columnist's argument.
Answer choice (B) does just that. "The funding of a particular activity is warranted if it is funded by elected representatives who legitimately fund that activity in general."
FERLFG = funded by elected representatives who legitimately fund that activity in general FAW = funded of a particular activity is warranted
FERLFG ==> FAW Not FAW ==> Not FERLFG
In this case we know that "the arts," in general, are being legitimately funded by elected representatives, and therefore, according to the principle answer choice (B), the funding of some particular work is also warranted.
Answer choice (D) does not support the argument. We have been given no information on what those who resent taxation to subsidize offensive art should or should not vote against. The discussion is based on whether or not the funding of some particular work of art that some may find abominable with tax dollars treats taxpayers justly or unjustly, i.e. whether it is warranted or not.
Hope that was helpful! Let us know if you have any other questions!
