Columnist on the arts: My elected

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite4% picked this

   Taxpayers should be allowed to decide whether a portion of their tax dollars is to be used

   The principle underlying our argument is more like, "Taxpayers don't get to decide which art gets taxpayer funding, so sometimes art they hate will get funded."

   4%
2. B

   Correct68% picked this

   The funding of a particular activity is warranted if it is funded by elected representatives who legitimately fund

   Why this is right

   This gives the us the typical "If Evidence, then Conclusion" answer we expect out of Strengthen-Principle. If an activity is funded Then funding by elected reps who ? of that particular legitimately fund that activity is warranted activity in general The activity we're talking about is "a work of art". Is it weird to call that an activity? Yeah, a bit. Technically, "a work of art" does imply action. In a more common sense view, we know that artists are subsidized by a patron or grant money while they are working on a given work. So it's not like the government pays an artist for a finished product. The government pays the artist to create a finished product. Okay, so the first sentence told us that elected reps are "within their rights to support the arts" (they legitimately fund the activity of art in general). According to this principle, then, the funding of any particular work of art is warranted. Warranted = proper, fair, justified. Thus we're proving that it's fair and just for tax dollars to flow to this controversial particular piece of art, and so the taxpayers who hate the piece of art are nonetheless not being treated unjustly.

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   68%
3. C

   Out of Scope: majority of constituents14% picked this

   Elected representatives are within their rights to fund any activity that is supported by a

   We already know that elected reps are within their rights to fund the arts in general, so we don't need any principle to tell us that. And the trigger for this rule, "Supported by a majority of constituents" doesn't appear anywhere in the argument.

   14%
4. D

   Unrelated to Goal7% picked this

   Those who resent taxation to subsidize offensive art should vote against their

   This is a principle that relates to a conclusion about whether or not someone should vote against their incumbent reps. We need a conclusion that's about whether or not it's unjust to fund controversial art with taxpayer money.

   7%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match7% picked this

   Since taxpayers are free to leave their country if they disapprove of their representatives’ decisions, they have no right

   This is a principle that relates to a conclusion about whether or not someone should vote against their incumbent reps. We need a conclusion that's about whether or not it's unjust to fund controversial art with taxpayer money.

   7%