PrepTest 105, Section 1, Question 3
Space programs have recently suffered several setbacks with(24 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- AThe cost of(7 more words not shown)
- BIt is just(14 more words not shown)
- CLarge projects are(14 more words not shown)
- DProject managers prefer(9 more words not shown)
- ELarge space projects(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why would smaller projects go better? We know the large space projects have suffered setbacks and lost money. We don't know what caused those setbacks. Perhaps funding was cut, or perhaps a technical mistake ruined a mission. A smaller project could face the same problems.
And failure doesn't automatically mean an ambitious goal should be abandoned. The goal might still be worth pursuing. Before accepting the switch, I'd want a reason to think size itself makes a meaningful difference, rather than assuming that “small” means “easy” or “successful.”
What we’re looking for
We're asked to support the recommendation, so our job is to help the author answer that objection. A useful prediction is that smaller projects are less likely to suffer these failures. That would give us a reason to prefer them in response to the financial losses, even if it wouldn't settle every question about the space program's goals.
Working the answers
- A
Rising startup costs don't distinguish large projects from small ones. Starting several new small projects might also become more expensive. We need a reason to favor the proposed switch, not merely another expense that space programs face.
- B
This puts large and small projects on equal footing in one respect: revising or scrapping them is equally easy. That might reassure someone who worried small projects were harder to change. But it doesn't establish an advantage that answers our concern about failures and lost money. C gives us that direct comparison.
- CCorrect
Now the greater risk belongs to the large projects themselves. They are inherently more likely to fail and carry greater financial risk than small projects. That addresses why switching size could help with the very setbacks and losses used to justify the recommendation. It doesn't make small projects risk-free; it gives them a relevant advantage.
- D
The managers' preference doesn't tell us whether small projects will avoid the setbacks or financial losses. They could prefer them for an unrelated reason, such as finding them more enjoyable. We'd need another connection between that preference and the problem the recommendation is supposed to solve.
- E
This offers a tradeoff: depth in a few places versus less depth across more regions. Which is better for this program? The argument gives us no priority that settles that choice. Without adding our own preference for breadth, we can't use this to favor small projects as the answer to the losses.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.