Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 3 · Question 18

Incorrect. First, this answer justifies not preventing the government from funding programs—that's subtly different that justifying a conclusion that the government should fund certain programs. Second, the stimulus never actually discusses the intended consequences of space travel—those programs might be intended to benefit most people, even if it doesn't benefit them in their day-to-day lives.

Incorrect. Since there were unintended consequences of these programs, it seems as if people could underestimate those benefits. Additionally, this answer does nothing to justify the conclusion that the government should continue funding something—it doesn't discuss funding or what the government should do.

Incorrect. There's no indication that space exploration isn't practical, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Stimulus Summary:
Space research has led to many unexpected technologies that people use every day, so the government should keep funding it.

Answer Anticipation:
There are a few key points in working through this question to form a solid anticipation.

First, note the rephrase of the conclusion. When an argument concludes that another viewpoint is "wrong," that's the same as saying the opposite of their viewpoint is true. Here, concluding it's wrong to say the government should stop funding space research is the same as saying the government should keep funding it, as we wrote in our Summary.

Second, there's a key phrase buried in the mess of information provided—"unexpected consequences." The LSAT frequently tests motive, and the difference between it, action, and outcome. So when the LSAT notes that an outcome wasn't expected, it's playing into these concepts and we should pay attention. Especially since, here, those positive, unexpected consequences are the rationale behind the conclusion.

With the conclusion rephrased and the premises boiled down, we can now directly connect the support to the judgment and anticipate our answer:

Governments should fund things that have had positive consequences, even if they're unexpected.

Answer Explanation:
Space exploration programs have, in the past, had "unexpected consequences" that provide society with "benefits," so this answer justifies the government continuing to support them, making this our answer.

Key Takeaway:
Principle questions are about justifying the argument, not just the conclusion. Correct answers need to connect the reasoning to the conclusion—they can't just focus on justifying the conclusion.

Incorrect. This principle can justify the government funding the space exploration program, which surely counts as an ambitious technological undertaking. However, it doesn't use the same justification as the argument. There, it's the unexpected benefits that are used to justify the research. This answer justifies it with a direct motivation to benefit society ("attempting to advance the welfare of society"), so it misses the mark.