Logical Reasoning

PT7 · S4 · Q11 Scientific research at a certain

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

Scientific research at a certain university was supported in part by an annual grant from a major foundation.

Conclusion (concluding that)

The weapons research in the physics department would not benefit from the foundation's grant.

Evidence

None of the foundation's money would be used for the weapons research.

Evaluate

We need to think of a way to argue that the physics dept's weapons research will benefit from the foundation's grant, even though none of the grant money will go to that department.

Can you benefit in some non-monetary way? Does the foundation's grant give some prestige to the university that benefits the physics dept's weapons research?

Could the foundation's grant indirectly benefit the weapons research? Maybe the grant money goes in part to some professor working on a cure for malaria, but that professor also works on the weapons research (and the grant money is part of how he can do both things).

Goal

Look for an answer that would allow us to say,

11.

Which one of the following describes a flaw in the reasoning underlying the foundation’s conclusion?

  1. Correct

    It overlooks the possibility that

    Why this is right

    Since this begins with "fails to consider / overlooks possibility", we can assess it like a Weaken idea. Does it hurt the argument if the foundation's grant money allows the university to redirect other funds to weapons research? Yes! That basically contradicts the conclusion. The weapons research is benefiting from the grant money! Because the foundation gave a $1 million grant to the cancer research lab, the university was able to withdraw $1 million from the cancer research lab's overall budget and send it over to the weapons lab.

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

    69% picked this

  2. It overlooks the possibility that

    No Impact

    Since this begins with "fails to consider / overlooks possibility", we can assess it like a Weaken idea. Does it hurt the argument if other university research projects, besides the weapons lab, are not aligned with humanitarian purposes? Nope, who cares if there's also a research project dedicated to making cow-slaughtering cheaper? This argument is only about whether or not the weapons research is benefiting from the grant money. Whether other non-humanitarian research exists tells us nothing about whether the weapons research is benefiting.

    5% picked this

  3. It overlooks the possibility that

    No Impact

    Since this begins with "fails to consider / overlooks possibility", we can assess it like a Weaken idea. Does it hurt the argument if the university promised not to spend grant money on the weapons research, specifically so that the foundation wouldn't cancel the grant? No, this is what everybody already thinks. The author thinks it. We think it. This is the common sense read of that sequence of events. The author wasn't thinking that the university made the promise for some other reason besides trying to placate the foundation, so this wouldn't hurt the author.

    12% picked this

  4. It confuses the intention of

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Since this is structured confuses X with Y we ask ourselves whether the author really conflated X with Y, whether she really went from establishing X to saying/thinking Y. She did establish the intention of not using a sum of money for a particular purpose: the university does not intend to use the sum of grant money for the purpose of weapons research. Okay, does the author then start saying/thinking that the university does not intend to use that grant money at all? No. We're thinking the grant money will still get used, just on humanitarian related research. The author never takes it to this 2nd idea that they won't use the grant money at all.

    9% picked this

  5. It assumes that if the

    Bad Trigger / Outcome Match

    Since this is structured "assumes if X, then Y", we'll ask ourselves whether the author went from establishing X to thinking/saying Y. Did she ever establish that a means to achieve an objective was humanitarian? Hmm, not really. There's a foundation with a humanitarian mission. Its objective is humanitarian in nature. We never hear that its means are. And according to this answer the author then makes an inference that its objective is humanitarian. The author doesn't conclude that it's humanitarian; it just factually tells us that its objective is humanitarian. There's no reasoning that gets us there.

    5% 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