PrepTest 111, Section 3, Question 20
Scientist: Some critics of public funding for this(50 more words not shown)
If the scientist's claims are(10 more words not shown)
- AThe benefits derived(14 more words not shown)
- BContinued public funding(6 more words not shown)
- CPublic support for(14 more words not shown)
- DThere is tremendous(19 more words not shown)
- EThat a public(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The critics' sentence is awkward, but their rule is simple: to justify continued public funding, you must be able to point to a public benefit.
That might sound reasonable. Why use public money for a project that doesn't help the public? Still, the passage is reporting the critics' position; it hasn't established that their rule is correct. And being able to indicate a benefit is the requirement they're proposing, which is different from our proving whether this project has benefits.
The scientist then says: if that rule were correct, the project wouldn't have tremendous public support. But the project does have tremendous support—even the critics acknowledge it. So, accepting the scientist's claims as the question asks, the critics' rule cannot be correct.
What we’re looking for
My first definite fact is that the public supports the project. We can also use the connection the scientist gives us to reject the critics' proposed requirement. As we check the answers, keep those conclusions separate from a claim that the funding is actually justified.
Working the answers
- A
Not being required is different from being irrelevant. A public benefit could matter to whether funding is justified without being something that must be indicated in every case. The scientist's rejection of the critics' requirement doesn't remove benefits from consideration altogether.
- B
The project has tremendous support, but the scientist hasn't supplied a rule that makes popular funding justified. Nor does rejecting one proposed requirement establish that every condition for justified funding has been met. We can know the critics' rule is wrong without deciding that this particular funding is justified.
- C
'Surest' makes a comparison the passage never makes. We aren't told how public support compares with evidence about costs, benefits, or any other possible indication of justification. The scientist uses public support to challenge this particular rule, not to rank it above every other consideration.
- D
We know there is tremendous public support. We don't know why. D supplies a cause for that support—the ability to indicate a public benefit—that the passage never establishes. We also aren't told that no benefit can be indicated. Either claim would add information beyond what the scientist says.
- ECorrect
This rejects precisely the requirement the critics propose. To see why it follows, try accepting that requirement as correct. According to the scientist, that would mean the project did not have tremendous public support. But it does. Given the scientist's claims, the requirement must therefore be wrong.
That's all we need. We don't have to assume that no benefit has been shown or that funding is actually continuing. The stated conflict between the critics' rule and acknowledged public support already proves that the ability to indicate a benefit is not required for justified continued funding.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.