Hey All,
I got a request to answer this question. Please, everyone, feel free to private message me if you'd like to follow up on some question threads and put in my two cents. Anyway, let's do this!
The Green Ensemble, a nonprofit theater group, has always been financially dependent on contributions from corporations and would have been forced to disband this year if any of its corporate sponsors had withdrawn their financial support. But the Green Ensemble has not only been able to continue in operation throughout this year, but also announced its schedule for the next year.
This is a draw a conclusion question, so we're only given premises (facts), and have to come up a conclusion. I'd say one conclusion jumps out at us right away.
Premise: GE would have disbanded this year if any corporate sponsors with withdrew support
GE has continued operating and announced operation next year
Conclusion: NO corporate sponsors withdrew support
DO NOT let yourself get distracted by that whole thing involving next year's operation. WE CANNOT infer anything about that, because the first premise ONLY tells us about what would have happened THIS year if sponsors withdrew support. Also, remember that "Draw A Conclusion" questions always involve staying REALLY close to the premises. We are NOT trying to find an answer choice that explains how the company is staying open this year and next. We are merely trying to find an answer choice that MUST BE TRUE based on the info we got.
Which of the following is a conclusion that can be properly drawn from the above information?
a) None of the Green Ensemble's corporate sponsors withdrew their financial support of the group this year.
ANSWER: Looks good! If any of the sponsors had withdrawn support, they would have folded. Done.
b) Earlier this year, the group found new non-coprate sponsors and other sources of funding for the next year, making the group less dependent on corporate sponsors for financial support.
PROBLEM: Sure, this provides one possible explanation for how the ensemble stayed open, but we don't know if that's true. (Any more than we know they didn't stay open because they won the lottery). If we don't KNOW IT IS TRUE, it cannot be the answer.
c) During this year, the corporate funding for the group almost doubled so that they could announce their programs for the next year also.
PROBLEM: AGAIN, this provides an explanation both for how they stayed open this year and announced programs for next year. BUT THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW FOR SURE. The premises don't support this possibility over the aforementioned lottery win.
d) The Green Ensemble started using more risque themes in its plays so that there will be more public support and less reliance on corporate sponsorship.
PROBLEM: Same as above, but even worse. This one doesn't refer to this year specifically, and talks more about the future (notice the future tense verb). This would never explain what happened this year, and even if it did, it would still be only one possible explanation.
e) The members of the Green Ensemble agreed to take a substantial cut in their salaries in order to continue into the next year.
PROBLEM: Same as all of the above. This COULD explain why they stayed open, but there's no way to know.
Hope that helps!
-tommy