PrepTest 141, Section 2, Question 14
Inez: Space-exploration programs pay for themselves many times(89 more words not shown)
Winona responds to Inez(1 more words not shown)
- Ashowing that there(13 more words not shown)
- Bsuggesting that Inez(11 more words not shown)
- Cdemonstrating that the(9 more words not shown)
- Dproviding evidence that(13 more words not shown)
- Eclaiming that a(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Useful technology sounds like a real benefit of exploring space. Imagine developing better insulation or new materials while trying to solve a spaceflight problem, then using those improvements elsewhere. I'd still want to compare the benefits with the costs before accepting Inez's strong claim that the programs pay for themselves, but I understand her reason for investing.
Winona's response is: why go through space exploration to get that technology? If practical technology is the goal, fund its development directly.
What we’re looking for
Could the discoveries be happy accidents we wouldn't know to pursue in advance? Perhaps. That would be a question to raise against Winona. But we're identifying how she responds, not deciding whether her response settles the debate. She claims we can pursue Inez's desired benefit without the space program used to justify the spending.
Working the answers
- A
Winona doesn't say that space exploration won't produce useful technology or that Inez has no evidence for that outcome. She objects to using that benefit as the justification for this route. The benefit could be real, and she could still recommend pursuing it directly.
- B
Winona doesn't identify contrary evidence that Inez overlooked, such as harmful results of space programs. She offers another way to pursue the proposed benefit. Saying “We could aim for that directly” is different from presenting evidence against the programs themselves.
- C
Which pieces of Inez's evidence contradict one another? None are identified. Technological advances and useful applications can coexist. Winona challenges the funding recommendation, not the consistency of Inez's supporting claims.
- D
Winona doesn't establish that useful technology can be achieved only at great expense. She doesn't calculate the cost of either route. Her response concerns what should be funded if practical technology is the objective, not a claim that the objective must be expensive.
- ECorrect
Inez's goal is developing technology with practical applications. The programs she endorses are space-exploration programs. Winona says that the technology can be funded directly, so the goal could be pursued without those programs. That describes her response even if we still have questions about how well direct funding would work.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.