- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#22799
Complete Question Explanation
Weaken-SN. The correct answer choice is (C)
In this stimulus, the author notes that high production costs are limiting which operas are made available to the public. Why is this the case? Because the high costs require the use of corporate sponsors, but those corporate sponsors only want to fund the most famous operas (if you think about this for a second, it makes some sense: would a corporation want to fund an opera no one has ever heard of or one that is famous and well-known? They probably get more mileage from the famous one, hence the preference there). But the author believes that the ticket purchasers should control the decision of what operas are produced, not these large corporations. So, the recommendation is made to reduce production budgets, which will then allow the public to see less famous operas.
There is a slew of conditional statements in this stimulus, but the key is to understand that the high costs necessitate a reliance on corporations, and that if the production budgets are lowered, the public will be able to see less famous operas.
The question stem asks you to Weaken the argument, which in this case will likely involve showing that even with lower budgets, the public still won't be able to see less famous operas (in other words, countering the final sentence of the stimulus).
Answer choice (A): The presence of the phrase "a few" provides a clear indication of the vagueness of this answer choice, which has no effect on the argumentation in the stimulus.
Answer choice (B): The author's argument does not consider the preferences of corporate sponsors—the current system shows that these sponsors obviously do prefer to sponsor famous operas. The argument from the stimulus regards the effects of removal of corporate sponsorships, regardless of corporate preference.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, and it is a very tricky one. First, the answer intends to shows that once you remove the large corporate sponsors, then, even if the shows are supported exclusively by box-office receipts and donations from individuals, that the result is still that only the most famous operas are produced. So, in this sense, this answer negates the final sentence of the argument, which is why it is correct.
However, while the abstract relationship between this answer and the argument might be clear, that still does not answer the question of how this actually undermines the argument in direct terms, so let's discuss that point. I used to explain the mechanism that can underlie this answer in class as follows:
Answer choice (D): Like incorrect answer choice (B) above, this answer is incorrect because it involves the actions of corporate sponsors, not the reaction of the opera system to reduction of reliance on corporate sponsorships.
Answer choice (E): The author's argument already considers this because the suggestion was to reduce budgets which would then allow for less dependence on corporations. The fact that other sources might raise less revenues does not weaken the assertion from the stimulus.
Weaken-SN. The correct answer choice is (C)
In this stimulus, the author notes that high production costs are limiting which operas are made available to the public. Why is this the case? Because the high costs require the use of corporate sponsors, but those corporate sponsors only want to fund the most famous operas (if you think about this for a second, it makes some sense: would a corporation want to fund an opera no one has ever heard of or one that is famous and well-known? They probably get more mileage from the famous one, hence the preference there). But the author believes that the ticket purchasers should control the decision of what operas are produced, not these large corporations. So, the recommendation is made to reduce production budgets, which will then allow the public to see less famous operas.
There is a slew of conditional statements in this stimulus, but the key is to understand that the high costs necessitate a reliance on corporations, and that if the production budgets are lowered, the public will be able to see less famous operas.
The question stem asks you to Weaken the argument, which in this case will likely involve showing that even with lower budgets, the public still won't be able to see less famous operas (in other words, countering the final sentence of the stimulus).
Answer choice (A): The presence of the phrase "a few" provides a clear indication of the vagueness of this answer choice, which has no effect on the argumentation in the stimulus.
Answer choice (B): The author's argument does not consider the preferences of corporate sponsors—the current system shows that these sponsors obviously do prefer to sponsor famous operas. The argument from the stimulus regards the effects of removal of corporate sponsorships, regardless of corporate preference.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, and it is a very tricky one. First, the answer intends to shows that once you remove the large corporate sponsors, then, even if the shows are supported exclusively by box-office receipts and donations from individuals, that the result is still that only the most famous operas are produced. So, in this sense, this answer negates the final sentence of the argument, which is why it is correct.
However, while the abstract relationship between this answer and the argument might be clear, that still does not answer the question of how this actually undermines the argument in direct terms, so let's discuss that point. I used to explain the mechanism that can underlie this answer in class as follows:
- Let's say you are producing an opera, and you follow this advice, and you tell your corporate sponsors to take a hike. Instead, you decide to produce a relatively small and unknown opera that you always loved, and you do so with a much reduced budget. What this answer is saying is that when you make the tickets available to the general public, they see the opera name and don't recognize it, and choose not to buy tickets. So, even though we no longer have corporate sponsors, the demand is also no longer there because the new opera isn't well-known and doesn't draw people in. To get tickets sales, you've just discovered that you can't offer unknown operas and must instead offer something famous enough to draw people in
Answer choice (D): Like incorrect answer choice (B) above, this answer is incorrect because it involves the actions of corporate sponsors, not the reaction of the opera system to reduction of reliance on corporate sponsorships.
Answer choice (E): The author's argument already considers this because the suggestion was to reduce budgets which would then allow for less dependence on corporations. The fact that other sources might raise less revenues does not weaken the assertion from the stimulus.
