PrepTest 155, Section 4, Question 17
Legislator: University humanities departments bring in less tuition(74 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(27 more words not shown)
- AIt is offered(9 more words not shown)
- BIt is an(8 more words not shown)
- CIt is put(13 more words not shown)
- DIt is an(10 more words not shown)
- EIt is one(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Bringing in less money doesn't mean losing more money. We also need to know what each department spends.
Imagine the different expenses involved in buying costly laboratory equipment and in teaching a course built around books. That's only an illustration, but the passage gives us the actual comparison: humanities teaching and research cost significantly less. As a result, the humanities bring in more than they spend, while the sciences spend more than they bring in. Looking only at incoming tuition and grants would miss that difference.
The legislator uses the comparison to reverse the familiar accusation. On this account, the humanities subsidize the sciences, rather than freeloading on them.
Does that settle whether a university should ever cut humanities during a budget shortfall? Not necessarily. Perhaps the university could change its whole mix of departments, cutting both humanities and sciences to concentrate on an even more profitable business school. That possibility doesn't dispute the stated figures; it questions whether those figures settle every budget decision.
What we’re looking for
But we're asked about the role of the lower-cost claim. Work backward from the final recommendation against cutting humanities. The subsidy claim helps support that recommendation. The information about lower costs helps explain the financial comparison behind the subsidy claim. It is an earlier supporting piece in that chain.
Working the answers
- A
The lower-cost claim helps challenge the stereotype that humanities freeload on sciences. It doesn't support that stereotype's accuracy. Looking at the cost side helps show why the department with less incoming money may actually be supporting the one with more.
- B
The claim being asked about is presented as a fact: humanities teaching and research cost less. The alleged stereotype is a different statement, that humanities freeload on sciences. The argument uses the cost fact to challenge that stereotype, so B assigns the two statements each other's roles.
- CCorrect
The cost comparison is part of the explanation for a claim later used as support. Lower costs help explain the humanities' surplus, and that surplus helps explain why humanities subsidize sciences. That financial relationship then supports the recommendation against cutting humanities. C allows for the claim's place within this connected line of reasoning.
- D
The legislator doesn't offer evidence to establish the lower-cost claim; it is given as a starting fact. The later subsidy claim is the one reached through the financial comparison. A statement doesn't become an intermediate conclusion merely because it supports something else. It must also be presented as something established by earlier support.
- E
These claims work together, not as separate, independent reasons. Lower costs alone wouldn't establish the financial benefit: we also need to know what the humanities bring in and how that relates to spending. The argument combines the revenue and cost information to reach the financial comparison, then uses that comparison in support of its recommendation.
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.