to the top

#14 - If an artist receives a public subsidy to support

jlam061695
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:25 pm
Points: 38

I have questions regarding answer choice C (the correct answer). Is the part that states "either the debtor is unable to repay it" referring to the event that the project does NOT "prove to be successful enough to allow the artist to repay the subsidy"? And is the second part of the either/or condition ("or the creditor is not interested in repayment") referring to the same portion in the stimulus? I think I am having more trouble seeing how the second part is relevant to the stimulus.
David Boyle
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:25 am
Points: 743

jlam061695 wrote:I have questions regarding answer choice C (the correct answer). Is the part that states "either the debtor is unable to repay it" referring to the event that the project does NOT "prove to be successful enough to allow the artist to repay the subsidy"? And is the second part of the either/or condition ("or the creditor is not interested in repayment") referring to the same portion in the stimulus? I think I am having more trouble seeing how the second part is relevant to the stimulus.



Hello,

As for "Is the part that states "either the debtor is unable to repay it" referring to the event that the project does NOT "prove to be successful enough to allow the artist to repay the subsidy"?", it seems to be so. As for "or the creditor is not interested in repayment", that seems to refer to "the money returned to the agency distributing the subsidies will be welcome as a source of support for other artists", i.e., the creditor "welcomes", is interested in, repayment.

David
Khodi7531
LSAT Master
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:31 pm
Points: 114

I chose A over C on this because in C, I just didn't know whether the "creditor is not interested in repayment" can be rejected.


Because I wasn't sure whether that was here or not in this situation and was looking for something to JUSTIFY the conclusion, directly lead to it, I couldn't chose it.
Also because it was an "or" ...and if we negate it it'll turn into an AND. Although the stimulus was able to confirm the first part I wasn't sure if it could confirm the negation of the second part ( ~creditor is not interested AND ~debtor is unable to repay > ~ rightly forgiven



What's wrong with my logic in this situation? I realize it still strengthens nonetheless due to the first portion but because I didn't know the situation of the creditor and repayment I went with A.


Thoughts?!
Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:18 am
Points: 436

Khodi,

This is a Strengthen question because of the "most helps to justify" wording in the question. This means the correct answer will help justify the conclusion, but might not fully justify it.

Answer choice (A) refers to a moral obligation to urge others to gain subsidies, which has nothing to do with the purported moral obligation to repay subsidies in the stimulus.

In fact, every answer but answer choice (C) fails even to address the idea of a moral obligation to repay. Because the conclusion is about the existence of such an obligation, all of those wrong answers can be rejected for that reason. This is a "negative" reason why answer choice (C) is correct - all the other answers fail in some identifiable way.

As for a "positive" reason why answer choice (C) is correct, it establishes that there is a debt, with forgiveness of that debt occurring only if certain conditions are met. This conditions are:

-the debtor is unable to pay

-the creditor is not interested in repayment

The stimulus deals with the first condition - it's only talking about situations where the artist earned enough to repay.

The stimulus also deals with the second condition - the money returned would be "welcome".

Thus, we can safely say that neither of these conditions is met. As you pointed out, the contrapositive would say something like "If BOTH these conditions are false, then the debt is not rightly forgiven." That's exactly what we have here, so the debt is not rightly forgiven. Thus, the debt exists and won't be rightly forgiven, so the artist is morally obligated to repay the subsidy, as required.

Robert Carroll