Claim: nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed. reason: it is inappropriate—and, perhaps, even cruel—to use public resources to fund the arts when people's basic needs are not being met.

This claim is highly problematic and debatable. Of course it's great sadness and tragedy when people are hungry and unemployed, but arts aren't there just for people to enjoy. Arts depict the collective spirit of the people and their culture and art stays there to represent the society even when people are gone. Not allocating for arts is almost like committing a cultural suicide which in the long run is problematic in sustaining a society around a common goal. It is certain that resources should be in such harsh periods differently allocated, but some funds have to be allocated for arts and culture as well.

While this statement holds truth, it is also important to remember that human nature have the inherent appreciation for art. Art provides a community a sense of camaraderie. It is also through art that history and culture is manifested. Suspension is too drastic of a measure, appropriation would be a better alternative to this scenario.

Icould be wrong but i would say b.