Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT156 S1 P2 Q11 Explanation

Art Subsidies

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsLocal PurposeHumanities

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Passage

What public interest is served by an earmarked tax for the arts? This is a most important question, for unless the public interest is somehow served, proponents of arts subsidies will be hard pressed to justify the transfer of money from taxpayers in general to those who happen to enjoy attending cultural the question of why the arts should not be funded exclusively through the private sector.

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. Individuals who simply do not have the money, or those who live in on an important part of a full life.

Arts events and institutions in a community also build social capital: the invisible, informal ties that bind our society together. By enhancing opportunities for citizens to get together, especially in amateur cultural organizations where they are participants rather than spectators, we build the social capital that is an essential determinant of a to engage in other civic activities, such as voting and volunteer work.

Passage

Tax-funded arts subsidies admittedly provide some incidental benefits, such as increasing tourism. Yet a justification for such subsidies must show the direct benefit of spending taxpayers' money on things the taxpayers themselves would not have chosen. It must show that subsidies will enable many are decidedly better than art that is privately funded.

Yet even if we could guarantee better art, it is doubtful that we could guarantee more widespread aesthetic enjoyment. Art that is subsidized generally will not be the art that most taxpayers would have chosen for themselves. Subsidized art generally reflects the tastes, not of popular audiences, Most people will therefore get what they don't like.

Moreover, culture is not like national defense: a public good that must be available to everyone if it is available to anyone. I can't buy my own defense policy, but I can buy my own aesthetic experiences. Nor can income level justify cultural subsidies. It may be that, if I had more of making their own choices. For these reasons, there can be no justification for arts subsidies.

What this question is testing

Local Purpose

Your task

Identify why the author included the referenced detail at that point in the passage — its function, not its content.

Common trap

Answers that merely repeat or summarize the topic of the detail instead of describing the role it plays.

Winning move

Ask what job the detail does for the paragraph, then for the passage's broader point.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
11.

The author of passage B mentions national defense primarily in

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: little consensus4% picked this

    identify an area in which there is little consensus about

    We don't have any reason to think that many people are arguing over whether or not the national defense should receive taxpayer money. That's probably one of the most bedrock ideas all taxpayers agree to -- the government should provide for a national defense.

  2. Opposite4% picked this

    suggest a similarity between arts funding and other types of

    We're looking for, "suggest a contrast between arts funding and one other type of public spending".

  3. Correct82% picked this

    make a comparison to a good that can be acquired only

    Why this is right

    It is true that national defense can be acquired only through public funding. As the author says in the following sentence, "I can't buy buy my own defense policy". Is this comparison a contrast between national defense and arts subsidies? Does the opposite apply to arts subsidies? Yes, it says "I can buy my own aesthetic experiences". Whereas the answers to most Local Purpose questions reinforce the wording that comes right before the detail sentence, this one is reinforcing wording that comes right after (since the detail sentence was the beginning of a paragraph).

    Skill tested: Local Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  4. Out of Scope: widespread support8% picked this

    point to an example of a public subsidy that enjoys

    There isn't any mention in the passage of the idea that national defense enjoys widespread support as a public subsidy.

  5. Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

    highlight the importance of public subsidies

    This doesn't sound anything like what we were looking for, which was "to provide a contrast between something that should be subsidized and something that shouldn't". The author wasn't having a general talk about public subsidies as a blessing. He was differentiating national defense from arts subsidies in order to argue that subsidization is merited in the former case but not in the latter case.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free