Logical reasoning PrepTest 137 · Section 4 · Question 16

Incorrect. This answer is a negation of the logic in the stimulus, so it's not necessary for the conclusion to hold.

Incorrect. This answer is a reversal of the secondary anticipation we made, so it's not necessary for the argument to work.

Incorrect. Forego the funding received from the profit-driven institutions? There's no indication that the department needs to skip the current funding to get new funding, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
The chem department's funding mostly comes from for-profit sources
not Secure more funding → Highly unlikely there'll be any significant advances
Therefore - not Funding from sources other than the for-profit sources, it's unlikely there'll be any significant advances (or the prestige associated with it)

Answer Anticipation:
When there's so much overlap between the premises and the conclusion, it's important to check to see any shifts that do occur, as they're directly related to the assumption being made.

Here, the conclusion connects two things: a lack of funding from new sources, and it being unlikely that there'll be significant scientific advances from this department along with the associated prestige. The latter term is discussed in the premises (minus the prestige, which we'll circle back to), but those premises never discuss a lack of funding from sources other than for-profit sources. The premise just talks about a failure to secure additional funding. That shift—from additional funding to funding from new sources—is the key shift in the argument.

In making this jump, the Professor is assuming that any additional funding will have to come from a new source. But it's also possible that the additional funding could come from for-profit sources—either new ones, or from additional funds from the current ones. Let's find an answer that highlights this assumption.

Circling back to the discussion of prestige, it's possible that it'll feature in the correct answer, but unlikely. That prestige is directly attached to the failure to make any significant advances, which is a term shared with the premises, so there's no gap there. At most, the argument is assuming that there is prestige associated with making significant scientific advances, so we should look for that answer, but it's more self-contained in the conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the terms that the Professor jumps between—securing more funding, and finding new sources of funding outside of the for-profit world. If the chemistry department's funding for research isn't likely to increase even if it finds new sources of funding, then the argument falls apart. This answer is therefore necessary for the argument to work.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions more frequently deal with alternatives than with missing connections, but the latter do show up. When they do, find what elements of the argument need to be connected and then look for the answer that connects them.

Incorrect. The argument never connects the funding to benefits from the research, so this answer is out of scope.