Logical reasoning PrepTest 124 · Section 1 · Question 11

Incorrect. The statement in question is the premise that leads directly to the conclusion, not the conclusion itself. Since statements have both a premise and a conclusion—the part introduced by "since" is the premise half.

Incorrect. The opening line does that in the aside (between the em-dashes).

Incorrect. While it does discuss making profits, it's in the context of showing why a certain group won't help with the goal at hand, so it's not a distraction.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Pure science (no benefit or short-term profit, just science) is an expensive public good that private corporations won't fund.
Conclusion - If a society wants the long-term benefits, they should fund it with public funds.

Answer Anticipation:
The opening statement here is background, presenting information about the topic to be discussed. More information is presented in the next line, transitioning from background to premise. After that, we get a premise that's going to lead directly to the conclusion ("Since . . . "). That second half of the sentence is also a statement of what should be done ("ought to"), which is almost always a conclusion.

The statement in question is the first half of the Since statement, so it's a premise supporting the conclusion. We could head into the answers with that in mind, but it also falls into a common category for a common pattern of reasoning—eliminating alternatives. The conclusion is that one group should fund a certain type of research based on a separate group not funding that research—the statement in question is what rules out that alternative. So the correct answer might highlight the statement in question as a premise that supports the conclusion by ruling out an alternative.

Answer Explanation:
This answer perfectly matches our Anticipation. It's a premise supporting the conclusion, and it does so by ruling out private investment as an avenue to get funding for pure science.

Key Takeaway:
Don't forget about the common methods of reasoning when tackling Argument Structure questions! If one is present, the correct answer will likely be framed around the elements of that method.

Incorrect. There's no unfortunate consequences noted, and it's not about failing to have public funds used for pure research.