LSAT 105 – Section 1 – Question 13

LSAT 105 - Section 1 - Question 13

February 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:59

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT105 S1 Q13
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
A
1%
156
B
98%
165
C
0%
150
D
0%
E
1%
157
123
131
139
 +Easiest 147.243 +SubsectionMedium

If an artist receives a public subsidy to support work on a specific project—e.g., making a film—and if this project then proves successful enough to allow the artist to repay the subsidy, is the artist then morally obliged to do so? The answer is clearly yes, since the money returned to the agency distributing the subsidies will be welcome as a source of support for other artists deserving of public subsidies.

Summarize Argument
The author considers a question of whether artists who receive public subsidies should repay those subsidies and concludes that artists are morally required to do so. As evidence, the author states that returning the money would be a source of support for other artists deserving of public subsidies.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The author establishes an artists moral obligation by suggesting other artists would be able to receive the same benefit if the public subsidies were repaid.

A
this person has benefited from other people’s acting in just this way in the past
The author does not suggest an artist’s moral obligation is based on other people’s past actions. The subsidy an artist is initially granted if funded by the public, but this money could have a different source other than another artist’s repayment.
B
acting this way would allow others to obtain a benefit such as the one that this artist has obtained in the past
The author’s support for his conclusion is that, if the subsidy is repaid, other deserving artists would have access to this source of support.
C
this person had in fact, at an earlier time, made a tacit promise to act this way
The author does not mention whether an author made a promise to repay the funds before being granted the subsidy.
D
not acting this way would be a small benefit to the person in the short term but a substantial detriment to the person in the long run
The author does not compare short and long term benefits or detriments.
E
this person, by acting this way, would provide general benefits with a value exceeding the cost to the person of acting this way
The author does not mention what benefits or costs an artist repaying a subsidy would incur.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 105 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply