PrepTest 131

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Certain technologies are very risky in that they're expensive with no promise of return, but some people invest in them anyway.

Answer Anticipation:
The paradox presented in the stimulus is that an investment out there is "very risky," and yet some people take on those risks. In order to resolve that, there are two avenues of answers we could explore. The first deals directly with the risk—while the investments may be risky and unlikely to generate any returns, it's possible that the reward for a successful investment is so high that people are willing to take on that risk. The second deals with rationale—it's possible that some people invest in these technologies for reasons other than financial return. Maybe the ultra-rich view investment in life-extending technologies as philanthropic, and so they don't expect to make a return.

Answer Explanation:
This answer directly addresses the risk. It's a common aphorism that, "The greater the risk, the greater the return." If the return on these investments is so great that it can make people take on the high risk, then it makes sense that they would do so.

Key Takeaway:
The LSAT likes bringing up issues surrounding risk, whether through investments, insurance, or activities. Risk is an inherently probabilistic concept, so all things we've learned about probability on the LSAT can be featured.

Incorrect. Even if true, the argument establishes that these successes are the exception, not the rule, and so there's still the issue of why some investors are willing to take on the risk when the success stories are relatively rare.

Incorrect. If other investments are also risky, that provides a reason to believe that they also wouldn't find people willing to invest in them—and it certainly doesn't explain why, when faced with two equally risky investments, investors sometimes decide to pick the ones that promise to extend life/decrease pain.

Incorrect. A pretty solid trap answer for question #1! This answer is trying to get you to pick it by making you think that these investors invested because the investment seemed good at first before going south. However, this answer doesn't necessarily describe the investments in question since it doesn't state that life-extending/pain-reducing technologies are sometimes this type of investment.

Incorrect. Whether they lead to a greater understanding of the natural world is out of scope. If anything, it removes a non-financial reason to fund the research (pure scientific curiosity), thus making the paradox worse.