A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties

Dear joshnsit,
This is tagged as a Kaplan question, but I believe this is an LSAT question. LSAT reasoning questions are very tricky!

Here, we first are given the premise --- when folks "engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits", then there's a contract (explicit or implicit). OK, so far, so good.

Then, we get the example of the artist who gets mega-bucks from the government. OK, the artist has received money, so thereby has received a benefit. Is this a relationship in which the parties "engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits"? That's quite unclear.

You see, when the government issues public funds to a contractor to, for example, pave a highway or build a bridge, then there is something tangible in the public space that results from this expenditure of public money, and in theory, say, the bridge could provide the same benefit (passage over a river) to any and all citizens. The contractor benefits from public money, and the public benefits from the bridge --- that's "a reciprocal transfer of benefits." An artist creates art, and then individuals have their own private experience ---- some people may get nothing from any art, and others will be moved by the art. The experience of art is something very private and personal, how I feel about this work of art ---- in that sense, its quite unlike the example of the bridge.

Is the reason the government or private citizens support the arts to provide a benefit? Does art "benefit" people? What is would be the "benefit" that art provides? These are really subtle philosophical questions, but the point is, it's not at all clear that the relationship of artist-public is a relationship that both parties entered expecting a "reciprocal transfer of benefits". It doesn't fit the definition of "a reciprocal transfer of benefits", certainly not in the same way as if the government asked a contractor to build something tangible and practical.

The answer that directly addresses this issue is (B), which I believe is the OA. The artist-public relationship, whatever it may be, does not neatly fit a relationship predicated on "a reciprocal transfer of benefits", and therefore the contract which the premise discusses is not relevant to the artist.

Does all this make sense?
Mike