LSAT Question Explanation
PT 105, Section 1, Question 14
PriciplesArgument structure
An artists is morally obliged to repay public subsidies if their project is successful enough to do so.
The repaid money will be returned and distributed to other artists who deserve subsidies.
Explanation
Here we're asked for a principle that helps justify the conclusion, so I'm looking for an answer choice that illustrates that the evidence leads to the conclusion. We can treat these types of Principle questions similarly to Strengthen questions, so immediately start looking for a flaw.
The argument here is flawed because the author just assumes that the artists should pay back these subsidies when all we know is that they could pay them back, and that it would benefit other artists. We need a principle from the answer choices to that helps justify that the artists actually are obliged to pay back the subsidies.
Answer choices
The argument doesn't talk about artists urging other artists to try and get subsidies. This doesn't strengthen that artists should have to repay subsidies.
This doesn't tell us that artists should repay subsidies.
This does help tell us that the artists in the stimulus should repay subsidies. It says that subsidies should be considered debts (something that should be repaid). It also says that the debt is only forgiven if the person who received the subsidy doesn't have the means to pay it back (the artists in the stimulus do have the means) or whoever gave the subsidy doesn't want it back (the agency who was giving the subsidies in the stimulus would welcome the money back so they can support more artists).
This doesn't tell us that once financial success is achieved the receiver of the subsidy is obliged to pay it back.
This doesn't tell us that the artist would ever have to pay back a subsidy if they received one.