LSAT 111 – Section 3 – Question 20

LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 20

October 2001

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 2:11

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT111 S3 Q20	+LR +Exp	Must be true +MBT Conditional Reasoning +CondR	A 7% 164 B 7% 162 C 15% 163 D 18% 164 E 53% 169	153 165 177	+Hardest	147.206 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Scientist: Some critics of public funding for this research project have maintained that only if it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project is continued public funding for it justified. If the critics were right about this, then there would not be the tremendous public support for the project that even its critics acknowledge.

Summary

The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences

The inference the stimulus is designed to produce is “The critics are wrong about the claim that indicating how the public will benefit is necessary for the public funding to be justified.” In other words, indicating public benefit is NOT required to justify public funding for the project.

This inference is warranted because if the critics were right, there would not be tremendous public support. But there is tremendous public support. This triggers the contrapositive and proves the critics are wrong.

The benefits derived from the research project are irrelevant to whether or not its funding is justified.

Could be false. We know indicating the benefits isn’t required for justification. That doesn’t mean they are irrelevant. Something can be highly relevant, even if it’s not required.

Continued public funding for the research project is justified.

Could be false. All we know is that the indication of how the public will benefit is not a requirement for justification. That doesn’t mean the project is actually justified. We don’t know whether it’s justified.

Public support for the research project is the surest indication of whether or not it is justified.

Could be false. We don’t know whether public support is the “surest” indication of justification. All we know is that there is public support, and that this shows the critics are wrong. That doesn’t mean the project is justified or that support indicates justification.

There is tremendous public support for the research project because it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project.

Could be false. We have no idea why there is tremendous public support. Nothing in the stimulus indicates the reason there exists such support.

That a public benefit can be indicated is not a requirement for the justification of the research project’s continued public funding.

Must be true. If the critics were right, there wouldn’t be tremendous public support. But there is tremendous public support. So the critics are wrong.

LSAT 111 – Section 3 – Question 20

LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 20

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel