Columnist on the arts: My elected government representatives were with

Question

Columnist on the arts: My elected government representatives were within their rights to vote to support the arts with tax dollars. While funded by the government, however, some artists have produced works of art that are morally or aesthetically offensive to many taxpayers. Nonetheless, my conclusion is that no taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund some particular work of art that they may find abominable.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the columnist’s argument?

(A) Taxpayers should be allowed to decide whether a portion of their tax dollars is to be used to fund the arts.

(B) The funding of a particular activity is warranted if it is funded by elected representatives who legitimately fund that activity in general.

(C) Elected representatives are within their rights to fund any activity that is supported by a majority of their constituents.

(D) Those who resent taxation to subsidize offensive art should vote against their incumbent government representatives.

(E) Since taxpayers are free to leave their country if they disapprove of their representatives decisions, they have no right to complain about arts funding.

Krishh9119 · Answer

Columnist on the arts: My elected government representatives were within their rights to vote to support the arts with tax dollars. While funded by the government, however, some artists have produced works of art that are morally or aesthetically offensive to many taxpayers. Nonetheless, my conclusion is that no taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund some particular work of art that they may find abominable.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the columnist’s argument?

Question type :Strengthen , We need an answer choice that strengthens the conclusion.

Conclusion: no taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund some particular work of art that they may find abominable.
 Premise1:  My elected government representatives were within their rights to vote to support the arts with tax dollars.
 Premise2:  While funded by the government, however, some artists have produced works of art that are morally or aesthetically offensive to many taxpayers.

(A) Taxpayers should be allowed to decide whether a portion of their tax dollars is to be used to fund the arts.

Out of context.

(B) The funding of a particular activity is warranted if it is funded by elected representatives who legitimately fund that activity in general. 
If this option is true ,then whatever the taxpayers feel do not matter as long as funding is done by elected representatives.

(C) Elected representatives are within their rights to fund any activity that is supported by a majority of their constituents.

This option does not tell us anything about the tax payers and the injustice.

(D) Those who resent taxation to subsidize offensive art should vote against their incumbent government representatives.
This is an after effect of what people would do. But not related to our argument.

(E) Since taxpayers are free to leave their country if they disapprove of their representatives decisions, they have no right to complain about arts funding.

Out of scope.

B is our Answer.

debjit1990 · Answer

Ans:B

(B) The funding of a particular activity is warranted if it is funded by elected representatives who legitimately fund that activity in general.

the activity is warranted means justified.so no taxpayers have been treated unjustly.

exc4libur · Answer

argument
= officials in their rights to support arts with tax
= some arts were offensive to many taxpayers
= but, this doesnt mean that they wer treated unjust

strengthen
Ans (B) since funding was warrented by officials who voted such, then conclusion stands.

globaldesi · Answer

Columnist on the arts: My elected government representatives were within their rights to vote to support the arts with tax dollars. While funded by the government, however, some artists have produced works of art that are morally or aesthetically offensive to many taxpayers. Nonetheless, my conclusion is that no taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund some particular work of art that they may find abominable.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the columnist’s argument?

Worked on elimination method for this question.

(A) Taxpayers should be allowed to decide whether a portion of their tax dollars is to be used to fund the arts. No where mentioned. only thing stated is " my conclusion is that no taxpayers have been treated unjustly "

(B) The funding of a particular activity is warranted if it is funded by elected representatives who legitimately fund that activity in general.  given : "were within their rights to vote to support the arts with tax dollars. and no taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund some particular work of art that they may find abominable". This proves that votes activities are funded in general

(C) Elected representatives are within their rights to fund any activity that is supported by a majority of their constituents. Usage of word activity makes it extreme

(D) Those who resent taxation to subsidize offensive art should vote against their incumbent government representatives. Too extreme

(E) Since taxpayers are free to leave their country if they disapprove of their representatives decisions, they have no right to complain about arts funding. Too extreme

IMO B

chaitralirr · Answer

Columnist on the arts: My elected government representatives were within their rights to vote to support the arts with tax dollars. While funded by the government, however, some artists have produced works of art that are morally or aesthetically offensive to many taxpayers. Nonetheless, my conclusion is that no taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund some particular work of art that they may find abominable.

Stimulus: elected government were in their rights to vote to support the arts with tax dollars. while funded by government some of the artists art was objectionable to tax payers. however the columnist concluded that no tax payers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund the artists work of art and whose work the tax payers felt formidable.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the columnist’s argument?

(A) Taxpayers should be allowed to decide whether a portion of their tax dollars is to be used to fund the arts.  does not address the conclusion

(B) The funding of a particular activity is warranted if it is funded by elected representatives who legitimately fund that activity in general.  does not address the conclusion

(C) Elected representatives are within their rights to fund any activity that is supported by a majority of their constituents.  as most tax payers support the activity though some find it formidable arts is not waste of the money   IMO C

(D) Those who resent taxation to subsidize offensive art should vote against their incumbent government representatives.  irrelevant

(E) Since taxpayers are free to leave their country if they disapprove of their representatives decisions, they have no right to complain about arts funding.  irrelevant

unraveled · Answer

Columnist on the arts: My elected government representatives were within their rights to vote to support the arts with tax dollars. While funded by the government, however, some artists have produced works of art that are morally or aesthetically offensive to many taxpayers. Nonetheless, my conclusion is that no taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund some particular work of art that they may find abominable.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the columnist’s argument?

(A) Taxpayers should be allowed to decide  whether a portion of their tax dollars is to be used  to fund the arts. - WRONG. Not the core of the argument so this one has no impact.

(B) The funding of a particular activity is warranted if it is funded by elected representatives who  legitimately fund that activity in general . - CORRECT. Legitimate usage of funds = just treatment.

(C) Elected representatives are within their rights to fund any activity that is supported by a majority of their constituents. - WRONG. No doubt that we can't contradict this one but it has no effect as such on the argument i.e. unjust treatment to anyone.

(D) Those who resent taxation to subsidize offensive art  should vote against their incumbent government  representatives. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(E) Since taxpayers are  free to leave their country if they disapprove of their representatives decisions , they have no right to complain about arts funding. - WRONG. Irrelevant set of people.

Answer B.

Rishika725GMAT · Answer

To find the principle that supports the columnist’s
argument, we need to find a choice that says that it’s
OK to draw that kind of conclusion from that kind of
evidence. The conclusion is fairly easy to spot,
signaled as it is by “my conclusion is that.” According
to the columnist, taxpayers whose tax dollars are used
to fund works they don’t like aren’t being treated
unjustly. Why? All we’re told is that the government was
within its rights to support the arts with tax dollars. In
other words, the general funding was justified, so the
funding in even the extreme cases is justified. It’s hard
to form a precise pre-phrase here, but we know that the
correct choice will probably move from general to
specific to support the reasoning. (B), if adopted,
would do the job, since it justifies a particular activity
(like funding offensive art) as long as the general
activity (like funding the arts in general) is legitimately
supported by elected representatives (like the “elected
government representatives” in the first sentence).
(A) could only interfere with the argument. The columnist
takes for granted that the funding of the arts is
legitimate, but (A) would make the columnist revisit
that issue.
(C) We don’t know whether a majority would support
the funding of the offensive art, or even art in general,
so (C) doesn’t help.
(D) and (E) are decent sound bites, but they don’t
address the issue of whether funding these particular
activities is justified. Whether taxpayers have an
effective remedy for unjust actions, (D), and whether
they even have the right to complain, (E), don’t speak
to the issue of whether the taxpayers have been
treated fairl

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises:

My elected government representatives were within their rights to vote to support the arts with tax dollars. 
While funded by the government, however, some artists have produced works of art that are morally or aesthetically offensive to many taxpayers.

Conclusion:   No taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund some particular work of art that they may find abominable.

What is the principle used to arrive at this conclusion?
It has to be something on the lines of - "It is the right of the elected representatives to decide where to allocate funds even if public doesn't support it."

(B) The funding of a particular activity is warranted if it is funded by elected representatives who legitimately fund that activity in general.

Makes sense. It says that funding for an activity is fine if it is funded by elected representatives.

(C) Elected representatives are within their rights to fund any activity that is supported by a majority of their constituents.

Here is the problem - supported by a majority of their constituents

This option does not tell us that it is the right of Elected representatives. It tells us that it is their right if it is supported by a majority of the constituents. We know that many 
constituents do not support these art works. Do we know whether the majority supports these art works? We don't. Then this principle does not support the columnist's argument.

Answer (B)

gullyboy09 · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB   GMATNinja , but it is already given in the passage that it is funded by the government, while option B says representative funded that, isn't it out of scope?

miag · Answer

Hi,

It’s not out of scope. The passage tells us the representatives were within their rights to fund the arts, but the conclusion goes further - it says no taxpayer has been treated unjustly.
To support that conclusion, we need a principle that connects legitimate government funding to absence of injustice.
That’s exactly what (B) does

Hope this helps clarify!

gullyboy09

Hi KarishmaB GMATNinja, but it is already given in the passage that it is funded by the government, while option B says representative funded that, isn't it out of scope?

gullyboy09 · Answer

Hi, yes I got your point, that we need a principle to make conclusion valid. But this principle is saying funding by representative is fine...but funding was done by government no?

Columnist on the arts: My elected government representatives were with

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Columnist on the arts: My elected government representatives were with

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards