PrepTest 116

Incorrect. There's no indication that the practical research won't benefit the whole human race, or that the impractical research will benefit anyone, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument isn't over what type of research is more practical—the practicality of each type of research is established in the premises. Additionally, the plant research was just an example of practical research, not the only kind—there could be practical research into human genes.

Incorrect. There's no indication that investigating the connection between genes and personality traits will serve to allow for the prevention of those traits.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Understanding links between genes and personality have few practical consequences; research on how to use genetics to provide practical benefits is underfunded. So money should be shifted from the former to other genetic research.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions task us with justifying a judgment in the conclusion based on the details raised in the premises. Here, the judgment is about allocation of resources—money should be spent less on linking genes to personality traits, and more on other genetic research.

The only other genetic research mentioned is the more mundane and practical" projects, such as making food hardier and more nutritious. These are "practical" as compared to the first type of research, which has "few practical consequences."

That comparison serves as the basis for why the Geneticist believes the money should be shifted around, so we're looking for an answer that establishes money should be spent on practical rather than impractical research.

Answer Explanation:
The research that the Geneticist thinks should be funded more is modest ("mundane") and practical, whereas the research she thinks should receive less funding is impressive ("promise new understanding of human nature") without practical consequences. This answer, therefore, justifies the Geneticist's conclusion and is correct.

Key Takeaway:
For Strengthen (Principle) questions, start with the conclusion. Identify the judgment, then find the relevant details that back it up. The conclusion will connect those ideas.

Incorrect. While the human gene research arguably gets media attention based on the stimulus (high—profile"), there's no indication that the other research doesn't, or that there's more public support for one than the other, so this answer is out of scope.