PrepTest 116, Section 3, Question 11
Geneticist: Billions of dollars are spent each year(73 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AExperiments that have(21 more words not shown)
- BExperiments that focus(18 more words not shown)
- CExperiments that help(14 more words not shown)
- DExperiments that have(17 more words not shown)
- EExperiments that get(27 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Understanding why people have certain personalities sounds interesting. Does interesting deserve more money than useful?
The geneticist says the high-profile human-gene experiments have few practical consequences, while projects that could improve food plants are underfunded. I can imagine some practical use for understanding personality: perhaps information about a child's tendencies could help a parent respond more effectively. But 'few practical consequences' doesn't mean none, and for this argument we can accept the comparison the geneticist gives us.
The proposed shift in funding is understandable. Hardier or more nutritious plants could offer concrete benefits. The missing step is the judgment about which goals deserve priority. The facts tell us one kind of research is more practical; the conclusion tells us to move money toward it.
What we’re looking for
We need a principle that helps justify that move. I'd look for a reason to favor the modest project with practical benefits over the more impressive project with little practical payoff. Repeating which research is practical won't quite get us to why it deserves priority.
Working the answers
- A
We aren't told that one set of experiments would help the entire human race while the other would help only a few people. Improving food plants could have broad benefits, but the exact comparison A needs hasn't been established. We can't replace a contrast in practical consequences with an unsupported contrast in how many people would benefit.
- B
This closely resembles the premise we're already accepting: the plant research is more practical. But why should being more practical determine where funding goes? B repeats the descriptive comparison without supplying the judgment that would make it a reason to favor one research program over the other.
- C
Studying the link between genes and personality is not the same as preventing undesirable personality traits. The argument doesn't establish that these experiments can prevent any trait. C's comparison therefore doesn't fit the two kinds of research we're evaluating, even if preventing malnutrition sounds like a sensible priority.
- DCorrect
This supplies the value judgment the recommendation needs. The modest projects with practical goals are more worthwhile than projects with impressive goals but few practical consequences. That gives us a reason to direct more funding toward the former.
The principle doesn't dictate an exact budget. It helps justify the proposed direction of the funding change, which is the task. We now have more than 'this work is practical'; we have a reason its practicality should count in its favor.
- E
High-profile research might attract media attention, but the passage doesn't establish the public-support comparison E requires. More fundamentally, the geneticist's case rests on practical consequences, not on treating obscurity as a sign of value. E doesn't turn the stated contrast in usefulness into a reason for the proposed funding priorities.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.