PrepTest 154, Section 1, Question 3
Near-Earth objects (NEOs) such as asteroids threaten the(60 more words not shown)
The statement that buying home(15 more words not shown)
- AIt connects an(9 more words not shown)
- BIt is the(5 more words not shown)
- CIt defines a(9 more words not shown)
- DIt provides a(12 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I don't want an asteroid hitting the Earth either. Spending money to prepare for that danger sounds reasonable.
There are still questions worth asking before calling the spending worthwhile. How likely is a sizable collision? Could the research actually help us counteract one? If there were virtually no risk, or nothing useful we could possibly do, we might question the expense. Those are questions about the argument, not facts the passage has established.
The author offers a comparison to home insurance. People spend money protecting themselves against a possible disaster even though they don't expect the disaster to happen. Government funding for NEO research is presented in that same spirit: prepare now for a damaging event that might occur later.
But the author doesn't merely say the two expenditures are alike. Buying home insurance is said to make good financial sense. That favorable judgment is what the author wants us to carry across the comparison to NEO research: this protective spending isn't a waste either.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what the home-insurance judgment does. It gives the comparison its force as support for the conclusion about research funding. Without the claim that insurance is sensible spending, merely saying the two activities share a reason wouldn't tell us that either is a good use of money.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The analogy compares funding research with buying home insurance. Saying that insurance makes financial sense connects that comparison to the conclusion that research funding isn't wasteful. It supplies the favorable assessment that the author transfers from the familiar insurance example to the research.
- B
The overall conclusion concerns government spending on NEO research: it is not a waste of money. The insurance claim helps support that conclusion. Ask which judgment the author is using to persuade us of the other. The author uses insurance's financial sense to defend research funding, rather than using the research to persuade us to buy insurance.
- C
Nothing in the statement defines a term. Saying that home insurance makes financial sense evaluates a purchase; it doesn't explain what “insurance,” “NEO,” or any other expression means. Its job is to support the financial comparison.
- D
A contrast would emphasize a relevant difference between the two situations. This argument does the opposite: governments fund the research for the same reason people insure their homes. The author uses a similarity to defend the research expenditure.
- E
The author doesn't attempt to prove that buying home insurance is financially sensible. That claim is taken as a starting point and applied to the research through the comparison. E reverses the role: it treats a statement supplying support as though it were the statement the argument is trying to establish.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.