- Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:52 pm
#62595
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