PrepTest 124, Section 1, Question 11
Pure science—research with no immediate commercial or technological(57 more words not shown)
The claim about private corporations(10 more words not shown)
- AIt expresses the(4 more words not shown)
- BIt explains what(13 more words not shown)
- CIt distracts attention(12 more words not shown)
- DIt supports the(12 more words not shown)
- EIt illustrates a(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Who will pay for research that doesn't make money right away? That's the problem the author is trying to solve.
“Pure science” has a specific meaning here: research without an immediate commercial or technological application. The definition doesn't mean commercially useful research is fake science. This particular research needs substantial funding but doesn't produce short-term profits, and the author tells us private corporations won't fund activities without those profits. Accept that claim for purposes of understanding the argument, even if you would question it in real life.
The author then recommends public funding. I can see the reasoning: if we want the benefits and private corporations won't pay, turn to the government. But are those the only possible sources? A wealthy individual might donate. Ruling out corporate funding doesn't necessarily eliminate every alternative to public funding.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what the claim about corporations does in the argument. Whether or not the argument covers every possibility, that claim supplies a reason for the recommendation: it rules out one possible source of money. We want an answer describing that supporting role.
Working the answers
- A
The conclusion is that a society wanting these benefits ought to use public funds. The claim about corporations helps explain why the author recommends doing that. It is a reason for the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.
- B
The definition appears earlier: research with no immediate commercial or technological application. The statement about what corporations will fund is a different claim. It concerns where the money can come from, not what the term means.
- C
Corporate funding is directly relevant to deciding whether the public should fund the research. It isn't a distracting new goal. The goal stays the same—obtaining the benefits of pure science—and the author considers a possible way to pay for it.
- DCorrect
Private corporations could have been an alternative source of funding. The claim rules them out by saying they won't support activities without short-term profits. Combined with the research's lack of those profits, that gives a reason to seek public funding instead. D accurately describes what this part of the argument contributes, even though other possible funding sources remain unaddressed.
- E
An example of unfortunate consequences would describe something like a country refusing public funding and then losing valuable research. No such case is given. The claim is a general statement about corporations' funding decisions, not a story showing what happened when someone rejected the recommendation.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.