PrepTest 131, Section 3, Question 18
Those who claim that governments should not continue(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AGovernments should not(16 more words not shown)
- BOne can never(11 more words not shown)
- CThe less practical(14 more words not shown)
- DGovernments should continue(12 more words not shown)
- EIn attempting to(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Should a government spend resources on space exploration? I might ask about other priorities, such as making sure people have enough food. Or I might wonder whether space work is inexpensive, useful, or inspiring. Those are possible considerations, but we need to follow the particular defense this author gives.
The defense concerns unexpected benefits. The direct consequences of exploring space may do little to change most people's daily lives. Yet, according to the passage, work on space exploration produced technologies such as fiber optics, computers, and lasers that do affect daily life. The original destination of the project isn't the whole measure of what society gained from it.
What we’re looking for
The argument uses those past benefits to defend continued support. For the underlying principle, connect that reason to that recommendation: governments should keep supporting projects that have produced unintended benefits. We aren't being asked to settle every competing budget priority; we're identifying the rule this argument relies on.
Working the answers
- A
Being permitted to allocate resources is different from having a reason to continue supporting a project. A also says nothing about a record of unintended benefits. It would allow projects without direct benefits to most people whether or not they had the beneficial history the author emphasizes.
- B
This concerns how we estimate beneficial consequences. It doesn't supply the rule that past unintended benefits justify continued support. The argument isn't primarily telling us how to estimate benefits; it is defending a funding decision based on benefits already produced.
- C
The author does not compare projects to show that less practical goals produce more unexpected consequences. More importantly, unexpected consequences need not be benefits. A relationship between practicality and surprise would not establish the recommendation to keep supporting these projects.
- DCorrect
Space exploration is the project, its technologies are the past unintended benefits, and continued government support is the recommendation. D connects all three. It explains why the author treats those past benefits as a reason to reject the proposal to stop devoting resources to space exploration.
- E
This recommends ambitious technological projects generally in pursuit of social welfare. The passage makes a more particular case from an existing project's record of unintended benefits. E leaves out that record and extends the recommendation to ambitious undertakings without explaining why past results justify continued support.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.