Logical Reasoning

PT129 · S1 · Q11 Cynthia: Corporations amply fund research

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Cynthia: Corporations amply fund research that generates marketable new technologies.

Statements

Cynthia: Marketable technologies get plenty of funding from corporations, but science is actually trying to solve the mysteries of the universe, so the govt. should help fund that purely theoretical stuff.

Luis: The point of using govt money for science is to fund discoveries that would benefit society as a whole. So it should only fund research that’s expected to yield practical applications.

Evaluation

Does Luis try to argue against any of Cynthia's explicit claims? Does Luis argue that corps do not amply fund research that generates sellable new tech? No. Does Luis argue that the fundamental goal of science is not to achieve a comprehensive knowledge of the universe? No. Does Luis argue that the govt should not be helping to fund basic science that is just about advancing our knowledge of nature? Yes, that seems to be fair, since Luis is saying that the govt should only fund stuff that is expected to yield practical applications.

Goal

So, essentially, they disagree over whether the govt should only fund science stuff expected to yield practical benefits, or whether the govt should also fund science stuff aimed merely at advancing our theoretical knowledge of nature.

11.

Cynthia's and Luis's statements provide the most support for the contention that they would disagree with each other about the truth of which one of the following statements?

  1. The government should help fund

    Half Scope

    Luis would say NO, but we don’t know what Cynthia would say. We know that Luis would disagree, because he only wants to fund research that’s expected to have practical benefits (not might have benefits). But, we can’t say that Cynthia would agree with this, because Cynthia wanted to fund theoretical research in order to broaden our knowledge of the universe, not because it might lead to practical applications.

    10% picked this

  2. A proposed study of the

    Nobody Agrees

    We wouldn't be able to derive this claim from either paragraph. This sounds like the sort of research Luis would be okay with funding (since it's potentially going to yield practical applications in agriculture). And Cynthia is advocating that the govt kick in some money to fund theoretical stuff. That doesn’t let us infer that she thinks the govt should not fund any practical stuff.

    11% picked this

  3. Although some research projects in

    Out of Scope

    We don’t know what either person would say about this. Neither person’s comments would allow us to infer what they believe about most theoretical projects. It also contains such a strong sweeping “NO theoretical projects” should be funded, that Luis might still say NO, since there could be a project in theoretical science that is still expected to yield practical applications, for which he would allow govt funding.

    17% picked this

  4. Research for the sole purpose

    Out of Scope

    We wouldn’t be able to infer that either person would sign off on a claim this extreme. The idea that only corporations can finance a certain type of research is overly limiting. Even if you ignore the contentious issue of govt. funding, neither person weighed in on other types of financing, such as private donors or crowdsourced fundraising.

    5% picked this

  5. Correct

    Knowledge gained through basic scientific

    Why this is right

    Cynthia would say YES, Luis would say NO. Cynthia thinks there are cases (theoretical research) when research is not expected to lead to practical discoveries but the govt should still fund it. Luis says that the govt should fund only when it is expected to lead to practical applications.

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

    57% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free