It is an absurd idea that whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow, as one can see by rephrasing the statement to read: No one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy.
Conclusion
It's absurd to say that whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow.
rephrased: The government obviously refuses to support some activities but still allows them.
Evidence
We can see how absurd that original claim is by rephrasing it in contrapositive form: .
Evaluate
This argument is brutal to understand on the first (and second) read. When we read arguments on Parallel, we're closely attuned to Repeated Concepts, because if the argument repeats the same idea multiple times, we might be able to assign that idea a variable and "algebraically keep track" of the argument's structure.
Are there concepts mentioned in both the first and second claims?
Yes, both of them talk about [whether or not the government allows a certain artistic endeavor], and if we understand that government subsidies are a proxy for government support then both claims talk about [whether or not a government supports an artistic endeavor with subsidies].
The claim the author is rebutting, the one she thinks is absurd, looks like this:
if government refuses → then government does to support art X not allow art X
And the author rephrases it in contrapositive form:
if government → then government supports allows art X art X with subsidy
Goal
So let's look for an argument that copies that form:
- a conclusion saying that a certain idea, "if X, then Y" is absurd / dumb / ridiculous - a premise just giving us the contrapositive of that idea (but this contrapositive might use some proxy idea like subsidy to stand-in for the idea of support)