PrepTest 129, Section 1, Question 11
Cynthia: Corporations amply fund research that generates marketable(82 more words not shown)
Cynthia's and Luis's statements provide(23 more words not shown)
- AThe government should(20 more words not shown)
- BA proposed study(22 more words not shown)
- CAlthough some research(24 more words not shown)
- DResearch for the(13 more words not shown)
- EKnowledge gained through(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Corporations have a reason to finance research that produces something they can sell. But what about research that expands our understanding without an obvious commercial payoff? Cynthia thinks the government should help support that work because science aims at understanding the universe.
We might wonder whether private donors could also support it, or whether science's goal by itself establishes what government should fund. But before deciding how convincing Cynthia is, listen to Luis's response. He doesn't reject government support altogether. He gives it a different purpose: producing technological advances that benefit society. He therefore limits funding to research expected to have practical applications.
What we’re looking for
For the disagreement question, the important contrast is the condition Luis adds. Could research merit government funding just for advancing theoretical knowledge, without an expected practical result? Cynthia's recommendation allows that. Luis's restriction rules it out. Look for a statement about that boundary, rather than simply whether government should fund science.
Working the answers
- A
Cynthia supports funding theoretical research, but the reason offered here is its potential practical applications, not the value of theoretical knowledge itself. Luis's response isn't settled either. A particular application could be unforeseen while some practical benefit is still expected. A doesn't clearly place the two speakers on opposite sides of the statement as written.
- B
The project aims at a practical agricultural result, so it fits the kind of research Luis regards as eligible. Cynthia never says that practical research should be denied funding. Advocating support for theoretical work doesn't commit her to opposing support for crop research. We don't have the required disagreement.
- C
Neither speaker tells us that most theoretical projects lack practical benefits. Luis also doesn't reject theoretical research simply because it is theoretical; a project with expected practical applications could meet his requirement. Cynthia would reject the blanket ban, but we cannot assign that ban and its numerical premise to Luis.
- D
Cynthia says corporations already amply fund marketable technology. That isn't the same as saying that only corporations ought to fund it. She recommends additional government support for theoretical work without establishing an exclusive division of responsibility. D needs a restrictive view she hasn't expressed.
- ECorrect
Cynthia would agree that expected useful technology isn't required: advancing theoretical knowledge is a reason for government support in her account. Luis would disagree because he limits support to research expected to yield practical applications. E captures their difference over what research must offer to merit government funding.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.