PrepTest 120, Section 3, Question 9
Laird: Pure research provides us with new technologies(48 more words not shown)
Laird and Kim disagree on(3 more words not shown)
- Aderives its significance(7 more words not shown)
- Bexpands the boundaries(5 more words not shown)
- Cshould have the(8 more words not shown)
- Dhas its most(5 more words not shown)
- Ehas any value(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Saving lives matters. Learning something new matters too. Which matters more?
Laird likes both results of pure research but puts expanding knowledge first. I can see why someone would question that ranking: isn't one benefit of learning something new that we can use it to help people? Kim makes that objection explicit. Saving lives comes first, and research deserves credit for helping medicine advance.
Neither speaker is against research. They are arguing about which benefit deserves the highest place. Also, saying that research gives us useful technology doesn't mean it's the only possible source of that technology. And calling something worthwhile doesn't settle how much funding it should receive. Those would be additional debates.
What we’re looking for
For this disagreement question, keep the actual dispute narrow: is research's greatest value in medical applications, or is its contribution to knowledge even more valuable? I want an answer one speaker accepts and the other rejects, not something they could both consider important.
Working the answers
- A
Both speakers recognize life-saving technology as a valuable result of research. “In part” leaves room for other benefits to matter more. Laird can agree with A while ranking knowledge first, and Kim can agree while ranking saved lives first. The disagreement needs that ranking.
- B
This describes an expansion of medical knowledge without saying how valuable it is compared with other results. Laird praises expanding knowledge, and Kim credits research with medical advances. Neither rejects this benefit. The passage gives us no yes-versus-no split over B.
- C
An important goal needn't be the most important goal. Even if both speakers endorsed saving lives as a goal, they could still disagree over whether another goal matters more. There's also a distinction between valuing a result and saying it should be the researcher's stated goal. C doesn't capture the comparison they actually make.
- DCorrect
Kim says saving lives counts most of all and points to medicine's progress. That supports identifying medical applications as research's most valuable achievements. Laird ranks expanding knowledge and providing new ideas above the life-saving technology. We have the required split: Kim says yes; Laird says no.
- E
Kim doesn't say that every other benefit is worthless. Putting saved lives first leaves room for knowledge to have some value too. Laird clearly values knowledge apart from the medical technology, but we don't have Kim's denial of that value. “Most valuable” is not the same as “the only thing with any value.”
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.