Some legislators refuse to commit

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: ensure2% picked this

   The committal of public funds for new scientific research will ensure that the public welfare

   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%
2. B

   Inference Bait2% picked this

   If it were possible to predict the general outcome of a new scientific research effort, then legislators would not refuse to commit

   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%
3. C

   Unsupported Comparison3% picked this

   Scientific discoveries that have contributed to the public welfare would have occurred sooner if public funds had been committed to the

   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.

   3%
4. D

   Too Strong: ensure / must3% picked this

   In order to ensure that scientific research is directed toward contributing to the public welfare, legislators must commit public

   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)."

   3%
5. E

   Correct90% picked this

   Lack of guarantees that new scientific research will contribute to the public welfare is not sufficient reason for legislators to refuse to commit

   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.

   90%