Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S4 · Q16 Professor: Unfortunately, pharmaceutical

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

Professor: Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies and other profit-driven institutions provide nearly all of the funding for the chemistry department's research.

Conclusion

If we don't get more funding from non-profit institutions, then the chemistry department is unlikely to gain the prestige that only basic science achievements can bring (i.e. the chemistry department is unlikely to make any significant advances in basic science).

Evidence

If we at this chemistry department don't get more funding for basic research, this chemistry department is unlikely to make significant advances in basic science.

Currently, nearly all our funding comes from for-profit institutions.

Evaluate

There is a New Term in the Conclusion ("prestige"). New terms in the Conclusion on Assumption questions are a big deal. The correct answer almost always involves that new idea. But that's only if the new idea is central to what the author is trying to prove in her conclusion, only if the truth value of the conclusion hinges on that new idea.

In this case, 'prestige' is a meaningless toss-on. The argument is just trying to reiterate the same concept as before . It's just adding some dramatic flourish by talking about what this lack of achievements will cost us.

We don't have to call out the idea that the author is assuming , because his language explicitly says that: only achievements in basic science can confer the type of prestige he's talking about.

So we should get prestige of our docket and worry mainly about the case of,

The author seems to be making a move from Is that a False Choice? For-profit vs. nonprofit is an all encompassing binary when it comes to institutions, but what about individual donors? Could the chemistry department get more funding for basic research by rich, individual philanthropists making donations?

The argument is assuming "no, not enough".

The argument is also assuming that Did it ever say we can't?

No, it just conversationally implied that asking them was a dead end, but arguments need to establish assumptions like that.

Goal

Look for an answer ruling out the objection of or an answer ruling out the objection of

16.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the professor's argument relies?

If the chemistry department secures
Illegal Opposite
This is illegally flipping the light switch on the idea we did have. We were told if not more funding, unlikely significant advances This is saying if yes more funding, then yes significant advances
11% picked this
If the chemistry department's prestige
Wrong Causal Sequence
Our author is thinking that things could happen in this causal order: 1. department gets more funding for basic research from nonprofits 2. department makes a significant advance in basic research 3. department gains sweet, sweet prestige This answer is saying "If #3 happens, then it is highly likely that #1 will happen after (subsequently)."
7% picked this
Members of the chemistry department
Out of Scope: forego for-profit funding
Our author was never suggesting that we get rid of the funding from for-profit institutions. His notion of "unfortunately" is more a commentary on the fact that his government / fellow citizens don't seem to be allocating much funding towards basic research in chemistry. He's sad he can only get money from for-profit places, not sad that he is getting money from them.
6% picked this
Correct
The chemistry department's funding for
Why this is right
Since this answer is conditional, we can consider whether it's "If left side, then right side" logic matches a move that the author made (we may have to contrapose it to see). funding from funding for basic nonprofits ? research unlikely doesn't increase to increase Yeah, this seems to match his thinking. After all, his conclusion is making it seem like nonprofits are the best/only hope for getting more funding for basic research. So this answer is just saying, "if they aren't going to give us more money, then we're probably not going to get more money". Here's a formal look at the logic of this argument. unless (if-not) we get more funding for BSR, unlikely ~ Fund ? ~Adv to make advances in BSR BSR ? without (if-not) more funding ~ Fund ? ~Adv from nonprofits, unlikely NP ? to make advances in BSR If we're trying to build the logic path the conclusion claims: ~Fund NP ? -------------------> ~Adv And this is what our evidence says, ~Fund BSR ? ----> ~Adv Then the missing link is ~Fund NP ? ? ~Fund BSR ? One final way to think about this answer is that it ruled out our possible objections about "couldn't you get more funding from the for-profits or from rich individuals?" This says, "No! If we don't get more from non-profits, we're unlikely to get more from anyone."
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
68% picked this
The profit-driven institutions that currently
Out of Scope: likely to benefit
The argument isn't ever discussing who would or wouldn't benefit from advances in basic science research (other than the chemistry department benefiting from prestige). If we negate this answer, does it weaken the argument? If we say that the for-profit institutions who currently comprise the bulk of the chemistry department's funding are likely to benefit from basic science research, are we weakening the argument? Not really. Maybe we could say, "Well since the for-profits are likely to benefit, they might be willing to invest more funding". That's just a pretty weak objection here, since the for-profits are already contributing a lot of funding. Those companies might already be allocating as much of their budget as they can to basic science research. Since "likely to benefit" means better than 50% chance, negating this answer means less than 50% chance. Does the author really care whether the for-profit institutions have a 51% chance vs. a 49% chance of benefiting from basic science research?
9% 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