Jacob: Public funding of the arts is worthwhile for our city because

No indication in the passage about comparison between different monetary costs .
Posted from my mobile device

 
­Jacob: Public funding of the arts is worthwhile for our city because publicly funded art makes the city more attractive to new residents and businesses, thus enhancing the city's tax base.
Jacob talks of getting new residents and businesses and thereby enhancing tax base as a reason why public funding should be done.

Andrew: That argument is misguided. Art's true value lies in being a profound expression of human nature. Funding art solely in order to reach economic goals debases it by disregarding its intrinsic value.
Andrew, however, disgarees on fuding SOLELY on th economic reasons. And doing so, is disregarding its intrinsic value.

A. a sufficient rationale for public funding of the arts in the city is the potential effects on the city's tax base
Clearly the above bold portions show that both differ on public funding solely on economic reasons.
Keep it

B. publicly funding the arts in the city would make the city more attractive to new residents and businesses
Andrew never contests that. 
Discard

C. public funding of the arts is likely to be economically worthwhile for the city
Again Andrew never contests that. He is against that being the sole reason.
Discard

D. publicly funding the arts in the city would lower the artistic quality of the arts there
No one talks of the quality going down. Rather, both seem to agree on the atistic value going up.
Discard

E. funding the arts while respecting art's intrinsic value necessarily entails ignoring issues concerning what monetary costs are reasonable­
Again, the point is public funding solely on monetary costs is debated, whether it will affect intrinsic value. However, the opposite is not discussed, that is public funding based on intrinsic value would lead to not having a monetary effect to it.
Discard


A

­
Jacob: Invest public's money on art because it will attract more people to the city and hence a larger tax base. (brings forth the commercial aspect and because of that, art should be funded)

Andrew: Your argument is misguided. Art's true value is its intrinsic value. If you disregard its intrinsic value and focus only on its commercial value (bringing in a larger tax base), you are debasing the art. 

Based on their statements, Jacob and Andrew most clearly disagree about whether

A. a sufficient rationale for public funding of the arts in the city is the potential effects on the city's tax base

Jacob feels that the commercial impact he suggested is sufficient rationale for funding the arts. Hence Jacob agrees that 'a sufficient rationale for public funding of the arts in the city is the potential effects on the city's tax base'

But Andrew thinks that it is not. That one should consider the intrinsic value of the art too, else it is a misguided argument. Hence Andrew does NOT agree that 'a sufficient rationale for public funding of the arts in the city is the potential effects on the city's tax base.'

Hence they disagree on this.  

B. publicly funding the arts in the city would make the city more attractive to new residents and businesses

Jacob claims this. Andrew does not disagree with this. He just says that this should not be the only reason why you fund arts. 

C. public funding of the arts is likely to be economically worthwhile for the city

Jacob claims this. Andrew does not disagree with this. He says doen't think just about 'economically worthwhile'

D. publicly funding the arts in the city would lower the artistic quality of the arts there

No one suggests this. 

E. funding the arts while respecting art's intrinsic value necessarily entails ignoring issues concerning what monetary costs are reasonable­

The option is trying to confuse you with a promising art (funding the arts while respecting art's intrinsic value)

There is no discussion about what 'funding the arts while respecting art's intrinsic value' entails. Andrew says that do not look at just the economic benefit. Do not disregard the intrinsic value. He doesn't say anything about what funding the arts while respecting art's intrinsic value requires.
 
Even if you were not sure of this, look at the second part 'funding the arts while respecting art's intrinsic value requires ignoring issues concerning what monetary costs are reasonable­'
Is there any discussion on what monetary costs are reasonable to invest in art? We are talking about monetary costs to making art. Is there any discussion on how much money should be invested in the arts and what amount is reasonable? No, the entire discussion simply revolves around "WHY the city should invest in art... only for commercial reasons or intrinsic reasons should also be considered?"
Andrew does not say, "Fund the arts because they are profound expressions of human nature and you should not worry about how much money goes into making them... any amount is reasonable..."

That is why (E) makes no sense

Answer (A)

I did not understand meaning of Sentence A. What is the meaning of word 'effects' here?

Understanding the argument - 
­Jacob: Public funding of the arts is worthwhile for our city because publicly funded art makes the city more attractive to new residents and businesses, thus enhancing the city's tax base. - Basically, it says that "public funding is worthwhile because it enhances the tax base." 

Andrew: That argument is misguided. Art's true value lies in being a profound expression of human nature. Funding art solely in order to reach economic goals debases it by disregarding its intrinsic value. - His main contention is the thought process of "enhancing the tax bases" as the primary reason for the worthwileness of public funding in arts. Based on him, the simple justification of the worthwileness of public funding in arts could be to improve the intrinsic value of art. He feels that tying it just to economic benefits debases the art. 

Based on their statements, Jacob and Andrew most clearly disagree about whether

A. a sufficient rationale for public funding of the arts in the city is the potential effects on the city's tax base - Yes. 

B. publicly funding the arts in the city would make the city more attractive to new residents and businesses - he doesn't dispute this. 

C. public funding of the arts is likely to be economically worthwhile for the city - No, he doesn't necessarily dispute this. He may be ok with this, but the real issue is the reasoning. According to Andrew, the reason of enhancing the city's tax base demeans art.

D. publicly funding the arts in the city would lower the artistic quality of the arts there - out of scope. 

E. funding the arts while respecting art's intrinsic value necessarily entails ignoring issues concerning what monetary costs are reasonable­ - No. out of scope. 

The key here is to find what both are actually saying so that we can infer what they both disagree on. Jacob's conclusion is that public funding of the arts is worthwhile, as it is able to enhance the city's tax base by attracting new residents. Andrew's conclusion, based on what Jacob said, is that Jacob's argument is misguided, as to say it is not the goal of the arts to be worthwhile for economic reasons. Essentially, Andrew attacks Jacob's interpretation of what arts are there for, leading to the core of their disagreement: why art should be funded. Choice A clearly states that they disagree about the reason (rational) for public funding of arts for the purpose of enhancing the tax base. So this must be the correct answer choice. B is not disputed by Andrew, neither is C. D creates a causal relationship between funding and the lowering of the artistic quality, which neither Andrew nor Jacob mention. Using an additional assumption, one can come to the conclusion that this could be something that Andrew fears. However, the question is what they both disagree on, making D completely irrelevant, as Jacob does not mention this at all. E talks about costs. Neither A nor J mention costs.

option A is basically saying: a well-established reason for funding arts is the impact on tax income. this is where jacob and andrew disagree with each other.


but this question is flawed because the prompt itself is misguided.

jacob's argument: funding arts can increase tax income and therefore it is worthwhile for us to make it happen.
andrew's argument: binding funding arts and increasing tax income together is desecrating arts, followed by a misguided proposal.

has jacob's argument ever denied what andrew called intrinsic value?
no. his reasoning is simple and never involves those nature or value things.

has andrew really made jacob's argument fail with a reasonable doubt?
no. he just made his own claim about the significance of following intrinsic value, a claim standing on the moral high ground but completely irrelevant to jabob's reasoning.
so how did andrew conclude that jacob's argument is misguided?