Logical Reasoning

PT7 · S4 · Q2 Some legislators refuse to commit

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

Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare.

Conclusion

Such a position ignores the lessons of experience.

Rephrase: Experience shows that even if you can't be assured that new scientific research will contribute to the public welfare, you should be okay with committing public funds to it.

Evidence

Many important contributions to the public welfare that resulted from scientific research were never predicted as potential outcomes of that research. The example of a scientist studying molds leading to the discovery of antibiotics is provided.

Evaluate

The argument follows a common main conclusion pattern where the main conclusion is a Rebuttal. The argument opens with an Attribution "some legislators ...", and then the following claim sounds like the author's pushback.

Once we read the second sentence, we should suspect that it's the conclusion, and then listen to hear whether what follows sounds like the author trying to support/defend that claim. And indeed, the conclusion is supported by the claim that many beneficial outcomes of scientific research were unexpected, illustrated through historical examples like the study of molds leading to antibiotics.

Goal

Find the best available meaning match for 'Experience shows that we shouldn't refuse to commit public funds to research just because it isn't guaranteed to contribute to public welfare".

2.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the argument?

  1. The committal of public funds

    Too Strong: ensure

    This doesn't express the main conclusion. It's a stronger claim that no one made. The author's example shows that public funds sometimes lead to unexpected benefits to public welfare. She never comes close to saying that public funds guarantee a public benefit.

    2% picked this

  2. If it were possible to

    Inference Bait

    This is an unstated idea, not a tempting answer choice. It sounds like it's trying to flip the causal logic of the first sentence. We want an answer that mimics the meaning of the second sentence.

    2% picked this

  3. Scientific discoveries that have contributed

    Unsupported Comparison

    This wasn't stated explicitly in the passage, so shouldn't be tempting as an answer. The author never discusses speeding up the timeline of getting the public to benefit from scientific discoveries.

    2% picked this

  4. In order to ensure that

    Too Strong: ensure / must

    Clearly the author is trying to prevent legislators from rescinding funding on the basis of not being guaranteed a societal benefit from the research. But there's nothing in the paragraph like "they must commit funds in order to ensure that research is directed toward the public good". She is saying, "it's fine to commit funds even when you're not sure there will be a boost to the public good (because we can often be surprised by that part)."

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    Lack of guarantees that new

    Why this is right

    This matches the intended meaning of the second sentence, which is a rebuttal sentiment that is essentially saying the view in the first sentence is wrong. The first sentence is saying, "We refuse to commit public funds to sci research unless we can be guaranteed that it will contribute to public welfare", which can be rephrased, "If we can't be guaranteed that the research will benefit the public, then we will refuse to commit funds toward that research." Since the author is saying that this idea is wrong, she believes that "a lack of guarantee that the research will benefit the public does NOT mean that we should refuse to commit funds."

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

    91% 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