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.
_________________
Pain + Reflection = Progress | Ray Dalio
Good Books to read prior to MBA