If the government increases its

Answer choices

1. A

   Weakens, if anything3% picked this

   Governments should bear the majority of the financial burden of funding for

   The author's conclusion is saying that governments should not increase their funding. So how could we say he is assuming that governments should bear the majority of the financial burden of funding this research?

   3%
2. B

   Correct86% picked this

   Any increase in government funding would displace more private funding for funding for civilian scientific research

   Why this is right

   This gets at the Net Gain / Loss aspect of this conversation. The author is establishing that if the government increases its funding, private sources will decrease their funding. Does that end up being a net gain or loss in terms of funding? We don't know, because we know whether the government's increase will be bigger than / smaller than / equal to the private sector's decrease. Since the author is concluding that the overall level of funding would go down, he thinks that the government's increase would be smaller than the private sector's decrease. Or, as this answer puts it, he thinks that the private funding "displaced" by the increase in government funding will be larger than the uptick in government funding. If we negated this, it would be saying that "any increase in government funding would not displace more private funding than what it provides". In other words, if the government increased its funding by $1 million, then it would not cause more than $1 million of private funding to disappear. Thus, the overall level of funding would be the same or higher than before, which of course badly, badly weakens the argument.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   86%
3. C

   Out of Scope: no longer welcomed4% picked this

   Private donations toward research are no longer welcomed by researchers whose work

   If you're running a research lab, you will be happy if the government increases its funding and sad if you lose some private funding. You want all the funding you can get! The author wasn't saying that private funding would decrease because the research labs would say, "Your dollars are no longer welcome here, private donors!" The author was saying that private funding would decrease because the private donors would think, "That research lab will survive without our donation. The government's propping them up. Let's send our money elsewhere."

   4%
4. D

   Too Strong: can't be efficient5% picked this

   Civilian scientific research cannot be conducted efficiently with more than one

   This is similar to (C). The author wasn't saying that private funding would decrease because the research labs would say, "Hey, we're gonna have to turn down your donation. We're getting money from the government now, and we can't conduct research efficiently with more than one source of funding". The author was saying that private funding would decrease because the private donors would think, "That research lab will survive without our donation. The government's propping them up. Let's send our money elsewhere." Also, the government is seemingly already donating to these research labs. They already have multiple sources of funding. The argument is only talking about increasing funding.

   5%
5. E

   Too Strong: highest possible2% picked this

   Funding for civilian scientific research is currently at the highest

   There's no reason the author has to believe such an extreme claim like, "funding is at the highest possible level". He's only concluding that overall funding will decrease. There's no intimation that it's currently at the highest possible level (what would that even mean? they currently are funded with infinity dollars?)

   2%