Can someone field this PT 24 question? Forum

[kerflux]

Section 3, LR, #26 (last question)

Columnist on the arts: My elected government representatives were within their rights to vote to support the arts with tax dollars. While funded by the government, however, some artists have produced works of art that are morally or aesthetically offensive to many taxpayers. Nonetheless, my conclusion is that no taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund some particular work of art that they may find abominable.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the columnist's argument?

A) Taxpayers should be allowed to decide whether a portion of their tax dollars is to be used to fund the arts.

B) The funding of a particular activity is warranted if it is funded by elected representatives who legitimately fund that activity in general.

C) Elected representatives are within their rights to fund any activity that is supported by a majority of their constituents.

D) Those who resent taxation to subsidize offensive art should vote against their incumbent government representatives.

E) Since taxpayers are free to leave their country if they disapprove of their representatives' decisions, they have no right to complain about arts funding.


Last night, I selected answer D. In fairness to myself, I was nodding off when I was taking this section, and I made a lengthy logical leap, assuming that taxpayers are not treated unjustly because if they disapprove of their representatives' decisions (funding the arts) they are able to vote against them and this would somehow equate to their being treated justly; it doesn't even discuss the option of them being able to vote against their representatives, it is an endorsement that they do so... clearly, I misread. I literally fell asleep with the pencil in my hand, and in the light of day I see that this answer is not very well supported, if at all. Still, I don't follow the logic that leads to option B. If a funding of a particular activity is warranted, no one can be treated unjustly by it? I think I'm missing something, can someone shed a little light?

[6lehderjets]

Section 3, LR, #26 (last question)

Columnist on the arts: My elected government representatives were within their rights to vote to support the arts with tax dollars. While funded by the government, however, some artists have produced works of art that are morally or aesthetically offensive to many taxpayers. Nonetheless, my conclusion is that no taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund some particular work of art that they may find abominable.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the columnist's argument?

A) Taxpayers should be allowed to decide whether a portion of their tax dollars is to be used to fund the arts.

B) The funding of a particular activity is warranted if it is funded by elected representatives who legitimately fund that activity in general.

C) Elected representatives are within their rights to fund any activity that is supported by a majority of their constituents.

D) Those who resent taxation to subsidize offensive art should vote against their incumbent government representatives.

E) Since taxpayers are free to leave their country if they disapprove of their representatives' decisions, they have no right to complain about arts funding.


Last night, I selected answer D. In fairness to myself, I was nodding off when I was taking this section, and I made a lengthy logical leap, assuming that taxpayers are not treated unjustly because if they disapprove of their representatives' decisions (funding the arts) they are able to vote against them and this would somehow equate to their being treated justly; it doesn't even discuss the option of them being able to vote against their representatives, it is an endorsement that they do so... clearly, I misread. I literally fell asleep with the pencil in my hand, and in the light of day I see that this answer is not very well supported, if at all. Still, I don't follow the logic that leads to option B. If a funding of a particular activity is warranted, no one can be treated unjustly by it? I think I'm missing something, can someone shed a little light?

The key to B is in the first sentence of the stimulus. The columnist concedes that elected officials are allowed to support the arts with tax dollars. The fact that people have been offended by some works of art funded by the government is a moot point because there are no restrictions to the support the arts can receive with tax dollars.

[kerflux]

Thank you, I was fixated on the wrong portion