Q14 - If an artist receives a public subsidy to support work

[vincent.m]

Hi all,

I see why all the wrong answers are wrong, but I can not figure out why B is right mostly because of the part about the creditor not wanting repayment. I just do not see how that fits in with the stimulus. Thank you!

[maryadkins]

This is a strengthen question, so we want to beef up the argument.
The core is:

when an artist pays money back to the agency, the money will support other deserving artists

-->

the artist is morally obliged to repay the subsidy

The assumption is that just because it'll help other artists means the artist is obliged to do it. That's a leap.

(The correct answer here is (C) by the way, which I think is what you meant to type.)

(C) supports this argument by only giving us TWO situations where the artist should not pay back the subsidy: if the artist doesn't have the money, or if the creditor doesn't want to be repaid. Neither instance is applicable here as far as we know"”the first definitely isn't applicable because we're told the artist made money. And the second isn't applicable because we have no reason to think the agency making the subsidy doesn't want to be repaid. So (C) would suggest that in the absence of these two conditions, the artist should repay the money"”just what the conclusion says.

(A) gets the moral duty wrong. We're not talking about urging but about repaying.

(B) is out of scope and misses the point about repayment.

(D) is about the provider, not the artist.

(E) is totally out of scope.

Hope this helps!