D
Conclusion: If the government doesn't increase funding, then potentially great artists will be forced to abandon their art solely because they need to make a living.

Premise: Government funding for the arts must be increased if we expect to develop artists that will be remembered in the same class as Da Vinci, Picasso, and Van Gogh.

D--> Right on target.. Even though Government stops funding, artists dont have to abandon art as they will still be supported by other patrons

kvitkod wrote:

D
Conclusion: If the government doesn't increase funding, then potentially great artists will be forced to abandon their art solely because they need to make a living.

Premise: Government funding for the arts must be increased if we expect to develop artists that will be remembered in the same class as Da Vinci, Picasso, and Van Gogh.

D--> Right on target.. Even though Government stops funding, artists dont have to abandon art as they will still be supported by other patrons

In B we have the following reasoning:
Da Vinci (and others) did not have a government support, but are remembered now => it shows that such support is not necessary to be remembered. Please point the flaw.

PS On a sidenot u mite have thought of B as a probable answer . you can eliminate Bbecause u can counter the weakening effect B would have on the conclusion by saying that perhaps circumstances have changed and one need not expect that some thing that has worked in the past will work in the future as well .Perhaps they had ancestral wealth handed down to them on a silver platter or Maybe in those days , the royalty patronized art but these days there are hardly any royalty left

kvitkod wrote:mundasingh123, thanx