PrepTest 137, Section 4, Question 16
Professor: Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies and other profit-driven institutions(66 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AIf the chemistry(17 more words not shown)
- BIf the chemistry(22 more words not shown)
- CMembers of the(26 more words not shown)
- DThe chemistry department's(22 more words not shown)
- EThe profit-driven institutions(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why couldn't a company fund more basic science?
The professor needs more money for basic research if the department is to have a realistic chance at significant advances. But the conclusion specifies where the additional money must come from: sources other than profit-driven institutions. Needing more research money doesn't by itself establish that restriction on the donor.
We might initially pause over 'significant advances' becoming 'achievements' that bring prestige. Are those meant to refer to the same kind of success? Different wording alone doesn't establish a flaw. The clearer unanswered question concerns the funding source. Imagine a company willing to support basic research because it hopes the discoveries will pay off decades later, or because it also values advancing knowledge. Being profit-driven doesn't automatically exclude either motivation.
What we’re looking for
The necessary assumption must close off that possibility: without more money from other sources, basic-research funding is unlikely to increase. Otherwise, the department could get the needed increase from companies and still have a chance at the achievements that bring prestige.
Working the answers
- A
More funding doesn't guarantee significant discoveries. The professor treats it as needed for a realistic chance of advances, not as a promise of success once it arrives. Researchers could receive more money and still fail to make a breakthrough. The argument needn't assume otherwise.
- B
This goes from increased prestige to later funding. The argument goes the other way: it says a certain funding increase is needed for the research achievements that would bring prestige. What might happen after the department becomes prestigious doesn't supply the missing requirement beforehand.
- C
The department needn't give up the money it already receives. It could keep the existing support and seek additional money for basic science. The conclusion calls for an increase from other sources, not the elimination of profit-driven funding.
- DCorrect
This connects the source of the money with the research money the department needs. It says basic-research funding is unlikely to grow unless funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions grows.
Without this assumption, a company could supply the additional basic-research money while funding from other sources stayed unchanged. The professor's prediction about prestige would then lose its stated basis. D closes that gap without guaranteeing that the extra funding would produce a discovery.
- E
A company could benefit from basic research and still be unwilling to increase its funding. Or a company might support research for reasons beyond an immediate benefit. The argument needs the funding connection in D, not the stronger claim that the existing corporate donors probably won't benefit from the research.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.