PrepTest 142, Section 2, Question 6
Over the last five years, every new major(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AFor the past(12 more words not shown)
- BThe funding initially(19 more words not shown)
- CThe only research(20 more words not shown)
- DSome projects encouraged(14 more words not shown)
- EAll large corporations(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The money was cut. Why think the corporations caused the cuts?
We should accept that every qualifying alternative-energy initiative received far less than promised. We aren't told how many initiatives that includes, and the funding pattern alone doesn't explain what happened. A recession could have reduced the government's budget. A war could have redirected its priorities. Corporate opposition is another possibility, but wanting a project stopped isn't the same as influencing the funding decision.
What we’re looking for
For a strengthener, I'd welcome evidence connecting the corporations to the decisions. Maybe company leaders repeatedly pressed government officials to cut these particular projects. We could also strengthen the argument by ruling out an alternative explanation, such as a general shortage of money. Either route could make corporate influence more plausible; we don't need to prove the corporations controlled everything.
Working the answers
- A
Receiving little funding over two decades doesn't explain why the government sharply reduced money it had already promised during the last five years. That longer history could have many causes. We still need something connecting corporate opposition to the decisions at issue.
- B
Of course funding can change; we already know that it did. The question is why it changed. A general feature of the political process that permits revisions doesn't identify the corporations as an influence on these revisions.
- CCorrect
Now the cuts line up with corporate opposition: every research project suffering a severe cut was one the corporations discouraged. That makes the cuts look less like an indiscriminate reduction affecting research regardless of the corporations' preferences.
The pattern doesn't prove influence. The government might have another reason for disfavoring those same projects. But it gives us a stronger connection between opposition and lost funding, which makes the proposed explanation more convincing.
- D
These are projects corporations encouraged, not projects they opposed. Cuts to favored projects don't help establish that opposition explains the cuts to alternative energy. If anything, cuts occurring despite corporate support would give us another reason to investigate what else drives funding decisions.
- E
What forms of research? A corporation might oppose research on biological weapons while saying nothing about alternative energy. More importantly, opposition alone doesn't establish influence. The argument already gives us corporate opposition to these energy projects; E never connects that opposition to the government's choices.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.