The high cost of productions is severely limiting which operas are

Question

The high cost of productions is severely limiting which operas are available to the public. These costs necessitate reliance on large corporate sponsors, who in return demand that only the most famous operas be produced. Determining which operas will be produced should rest only with ticket purchasers at the box office, not with large corporate sponsors. If we reduce production budgets so that operas can be supported exclusively by box-office receipts and donations from individuals, then the public will be able to see less famous operas.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) A few ticket purchasers go to the opera for the sake of going to the opera, not to see specific operatic productions.

(B) The reduction of opera production budgets would not reduce the desire of large corporate sponsors to support operas.

(C) Without the support of large corporate sponsors, opera companies could not afford to produce any but the most famous of operas.

(D) Large corporate sponsors will stop supporting opera productions if they are denied control over which operas will be produced.

(E) The combination of individual donations and box-office receipts cannot match the amounts of money obtained through sponsorship by large corporations.

Source: LSAT

Skywalker18 · Answer

(A) We don't care about the preferences of a FEW opera purchasers

The justification for getting rid of (B) that we don't care whether large corporate sponsors still have a DESIRE to sponsor. We evaluating whether denying them the ABILITY to sponsor would result in the public seeing less famous operas.

I agree that (C) at first feels like cheating ... are we just denying the IF condition from the conclusion?

Not really. The IF condition from the conclusion is that production budgets would be lowered so that box-office and private donations can cover it. Let's say, to make this more concrete, that we only take in $50,000 per show from box-office and private donations.

Fine, then our production budget is set at $50,000. Will we now be staging less famous operas?

No, according to (C). The only operas we could afford without corporate sponsors will be the most famous of operas. So, according to (C) our $50,000 budget will only help us to produce the most famous of operas.

What's hard about interpreting this answer choice correctly is how counterintuitive it seems to me: it's essentially implying that the most famous operas are cheaper to produce than less famous operas are.

(I tend to assume the opposite, even though there's no reason more famous has to mean more expensive.)

As a more general rule of thumb, if you're trying to weaken an argument that's expressed in conditional form ...
IF we do this thing, THEN we get this result

... the test will almost always weaken it with an answer that shows "even if you do this thing, you still WON'T get the result you're seeking".

So I was reading answers looking for, "Which one tells me that, following our plan, we WON'T get less famous operas?"

Seen in this light, only (C) is relevant. None of the others even discuss how famous the operas will be.

(D) We don't care whether large corporate sponsors will or will not support opera productions. The conclusion is conditional, IF budgets can be reduced to the point where there is no need to rely on large corporate sponsors THEN ...
(E) Makes the same mistake as (D). Even if individuals can't match the donations of corporate sponsors, individuals might be able to cover all costs IF production budgets are reduced.

DharLog · Answer

The high cost of productions is severely limiting which operas are available to the public. These costs necessitate reliance on large corporate sponsors, who in return demand that only the most famous operas be produced. Determining which operas will be produced should rest only with ticket purchasers at the box office, not with large corporate sponsors. If we reduce production budgets so that operas can be supported exclusively by box-office receipts and donations from individuals, then the public will be able to see less famous operas.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument? 
------------------------

Prethinking gives us assumpion that in order to weaken the argument we have to find an option, that says that this
(" operas can be supported exclusively by box-office receipts and donations from individuals") will be not enough.
It is one of the few questions where the right answer just jumps in fron of you.

(A) A few ticket purchasers go to the opera for the sake of going to the opera, not to see specific operatic productions.
  Out of scope. It does not say anything about he link between individual donations an production of operas

(B) The reduction of opera production budgets would not reduce the desire of large corporate sponsors to support operas. 
 Ok, maybe. Still nothing about the link. Moreover. If production's costs are reduced, people will likely see more operas (so it is a strenghethener)

(C) Without the support of large corporate sponsors, opera companies could not afford to produce any but the most famous of operas.
 That is it. The righr answer, that jumps at us. 
 Corporate sponsors are out. So we have only individual sponsors. And money from them will not be enough for less famous operas and even for some of the most famous operas. So peeople will see fewer operas. Weakening.

(D) Large corporate sponsors will stop supporting opera productions if they are denied control over which operas will be produced. 
 Gives uds nothing. Ok, they will stop, but maybe there will be enough financial support from individual sponcors

(E) The combination of individual donations and box-office receipts cannot match the amounts of money obtained through sponsorship by large corporations.
 Sounds like it true. But again - it gives us nothing about the link. Maybe there will be enough financial support from individual sponcors

Source: LSAT

aarti0312 · Answer

Can someone please explain how C is the correct answer. Not able to understand the solution given.
 GMATNinja   nightblade354 . 
Please guide.

nightblade354 · Answer

aarti0312 , let's break down the question:

The high cost of productions is severely limiting which operas are available to the public. These costs necessitate reliance on large corporate sponsors, who in return demand that only the most famous operas be produced. Determining which operas will be produced should rest only with ticket purchasers at the box office, not with large corporate sponsors. If we reduce production budgets so that operas can be supported exclusively by box-office receipts and donations from individuals, then the public will be able to see less famous operas.

P1: The high cost of productions is severely limiting which operas are available to the public 
P2: These costs necessitate reliance on large corporate sponsors, who in return demand that only the most famous operas be produced
P3: Determining which operas will be produced should rest only with ticket purchasers at the box office, not with large corporate sponsors
C: If we reduce production budgets so that operas can be supported exclusively by box-office receipts and donations from individuals, then the public will be able to see less famous operas

OK, so this is an interesting set up. We are told that something costs a lot to produce. Further, we are told that in order to meet these costs, we must use outside help. But these outsiders want to control what we see. It is then proposed that we reduce these high costs so we can see less famous operas. WHAT? There is a gigantic assumption being made here, and if you miss it then you are probably going to get stuck with (E), which is truly wrong. The major issue at hand is whether famous operas cost less. Do they? Maybe less famous operas cost more because they need specialized items that are not in some of the most common operas. From this argument we could logically conclude that less budget = less outside help. But this conclusion is a stretch. We need to find something that looks like this or weakens the argument in another area. I doubt the LSAT will divert from the line of thinking above, but let's find out.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) A few ticket purchasers go to the opera for the sake of going to the opera, not to see specific operatic productions. --  Who cares about the motive? Are they still going? They are still going to see big or small operas supposedly, so this doesn't weaken our argument. In fact, it might strengthen it in some respect. Either way, out.

(B) The reduction of opera production budgets would not reduce the desire of large corporate sponsors to support operas. --  Who cares about the desire of the corporations? Do they still give money? Do we still listen to them? Do they force us to make big operas? We have no clue because we do not care about who wants what. Out.

(C) Without the support of large corporate sponsors, opera companies could not afford to produce any but the most famous of operas. --  Bingo, this is our weakener. Word for word what we were looking for. The LSAT plays on the idea that big operas are more expensive, but is this necessarily true? Not in the LSAT world (or the real world for that matter). If this were true, then our argument is gone. Perfect.

(D) Large corporate sponsors will stop supporting opera productions if they are denied control over which operas will be produced. --  Does this weaken anything? Nope. This just says that one of our assumptions is correct: That no money = no say. But this doesn't do anything for our argument that we want small time opera and smaller budgets. 
 
(E) The combination of individual donations and box-office receipts cannot match the amounts of money obtained through sponsorship by large corporations. --  The trap answer choice for those who get to (E) and assume that it is correct. But think about it. Do we really care that they do not match the corporations? What if we came up one cent short. Does this stop the opera? And once more, we want to put on small-time operas, so does budget match that? It could. This is a great trap answer choice if you do not understand the argument.

auradediligodo · Answer

The high cost of productions is severely limiting which operas are available to the public. These costs necessitate reliance on large corporate sponsors, who in return demand that only the most famous operas be produced. Determining which operas will be produced should rest only with ticket purchasers at the box office, not with large corporate sponsors. If we reduce production budgets so that operas can be supported exclusively by box-office receipts and donations from individuals, then the public will be able to see less famous operas.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

Weaken question

Pre-thinking

Our task here is to  analyze the plan  ( Reducing the budget-----> relying only on tickets payers and donations ------> less famous operas will be available to the public) and to  weaken  it

So what if   the less famous operas are more or equally expensive that the famous operas.  . Here the argument is assuming that   The less famous operas will cost less than the famous ones.

POE:

(A) A few ticket purchasers go to the opera for the sake of going to the opera, not to see specific operatic productions. 
 Irrelevant

(B) The reduction of opera production budgets would not reduce the desire of large corporate sponsors to support operas. 
 Sponsors will still demand the the realization of famous operas per the argument

(C)   Without the support of large corporate sponsors, opera companies could not afford to produce any but the most famous of operas. 
 This option suggests that famous operas are less expensive than the less famous operas. Good.

(D) Large corporate sponsors will stop supporting opera productions if they are denied control over which operas will be produced. 
 Irrelevant as we are evaluating the plan above mentioned

(E) The combination of individual donations and box-office receipts cannot match the amounts of money obtained through sponsorship by large corporations.
 Seems logical but it does not affect the argument 
Source: LSAT

unraveled · Answer

The high cost of productions is severely limiting which operas are available to the public. These costs necessitate reliance on large corporate sponsors, who in return demand that only the most famous operas be produced. Determining which operas will be produced should rest only with ticket purchasers at the box office, not with large corporate sponsors. If we reduce production budgets so that operas can be supported exclusively by box-office receipts and donations from individuals, then the public will be able to see less famous operas.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) A  few ticket purchasers go to the opera for the sake of going  to the opera, not to see specific operatic productions. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(B) The reduction of opera production budgets would  not reduce the desire of large corporate sponsors to support operas . - WRONG. Desire is irrelevant.

(C) Without the support of large corporate sponsors,  opera companies could not afford to produce any but the most famous of operas . - CORRECT. What about the less famous operas? POE helps

(D) Large corporate sponsors will  stop supporting opera productions  if they are denied control over which operas will be produced. - WRONG. Not hitting the core of the passage.

(E) The combination of individual donations and box-office receipts  cannot match the amounts of money obtained through sponsorship  by large corporations. - WRONG. Matching the amount of sponsorship money is not necessarily suggest that donation and receipts isn't enough or more than enough. But it should be more about whether operas can be produced or not.

Answer C.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

The high cost of productions is severely limiting which operas are

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

The high cost of productions is severely limiting which operas are

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