- Wed Dec 04, 2024 4:22 pm
#110929
Hi Lounalola!
First, let's sum up our two passages.
Passage A:
Public support of the arts is justifiable, because it increases accessibility to a region's culture, which is an important part of a full life. Arts events and institutions also build social capital, which is a determining aspect of a region's quality of life.
Passage B:
We cannot justify art subsidies for a number of reasons. 1) we cannot guarantee that art would be better; 2) we cannot guarantee more widespread aesthetic enjoyment, and; 3) culture is not a public good that must be made available to everyone.
Our question stem asks us to determine which answer choice our authors would be most likely to disagree about.
Let's take a look at Answer Choice B): "the range of arts organizations that can be reached by public funding and the resulting increase in the diversity of audiences is in itself a justification for such funding."
Although this seems like something the author of Passage A may argue, it actually isn't. The author argues the following:
1) If art is left to the private sector, opportunities to share in a region's cultural life will not be distributed equally, thus missing an important part of a full life.
2) Art builds social capital and helps bind our society together and improve quality of life.
The author of Passage A provides multiple justifications for why art subsidies are useful, and doesn't argue that any one by itself provides sufficient justification. Although we can likely infer from Passage B's argument that their author would disagree with the statement in Answer Choice B, we don't have sufficient justification to say that the author of Passage A would agree with it.
I hope this helps!