Millions of irreplaceable exhibits in natural history museums are

D it is.
Though Stuck between D and E.

E wrong because if the decay is natural and cannot be prevented, no amount of money would be able to save them. Hence out of scope.

Can anyone please explain to me why option E is incorrect and D is correct using the negation technique? I am still a bit confused regarding option E.

certain museum exhibits have helped scientists in the past

--->

we should raise $$ to preserve the museum exhibits that will be most valuable to scientists in the future

Well, for one thing, there’s the jump between past and future. How can we know which exhibits future scientists will find useful? Time travel hasn’t been developed yet...

Let’s go to the answer choices.

(A) has a bunch of term shifts. "Irreplaceable" is much stronger than "most valuable," and "overriding economic considerations" is much stronger than "raising funds." Already, this answer choice is too extreme.
But let’s say we take out those term shifts. Then this answer choice would basically say "valuable exhibits should be preserved!" This essentially restates the original conclusion. Any answer choice that tells us something we already know is wrong. Remember, assumptions are ALWAYS unstated.

(B) isn’t assumed. The stimulus talks about museum exhibits naturally decaying, not being actively destroyed. More importantly, the stimulus never describes how to determine the scientific value of museum exhibits. Perhaps scientific value can be assessed by scientific analyses, or perhaps by psychic readings. We don’t know if scientific analyses will be used, so we don’t need to know whether or not such analyses would harm exhibits.

(D) beautifully matches the assumption above. HOW on earth can we determine what will be valuable to future scientists??? The argument never lets us know, and (D) points this out. (D) is correct.




Hi csaluja ,
E is a weakener here and not an assumption .
E) Negation -->the decay of organic material in natural history exhibits is not natural and can be prevented ---> This strengthens our conclusion
On the other hand ,
(D) it CANNOT be known at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future --> If it can't be known now, how can we decide which exhibits to preserve?

Hope this helps!!

Millions of irreplaceable exhibits in natural history museums are currently allowed to decay. Yet without analyses of eggs from museums, the studies linking pesticides with the decline of birds of prey would have been impossible. Therefore, funds must be raised to preserve at least those exhibits that will be most valuable to science in the future.

The argument presupposes that

Presupposes means Assumption.

Pre-Thinking: Possible assumptions
Analysis of these items in the current state is possible and useful for science.
We should know, which item to be preserved.

From the given options, D is closest to my assumption
For preserving the items which might be useful in the future for science we should have the data to find such items.

(A) if a museum exhibit is irreplaceable, its preservation is of an importance that overrides economic considerations OFS
(B) the scientific analysis of museum exhibits can be performed in nondestructive way OFS, We are least concerned about that
(C) eggs of extinct species should be analyzed to increase knowledge of genetic relationships among species OFS, Genetic relationships is not part of argument
(D) it can be known at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future If this is negated then Conclusion is shattered
(E) the decay of organic material in natural history exhibits is natural and cannot be preventedISWAT, Close choice, It should be the other way (the decay of organic material in natural history exhibits can be prevented)

Premise-1: Millions of irreplaceable exhibits in natural history museums are currently allowed to decay.
Premise-2: Yet without analyses of eggs from museums, the studies linking pesticides with the decline of birds of prey would have been impossible.
Conclusion: Therefore, funds must be raised to preserve at least those exhibits that will be most valuable to science in the future.

Notice the word 'yet' in Premise-2, which can be interpreted as: Although, irreplaceable, some things can be/are allowed to decay.

Question asking about assumption.

(A) if a museum exhibit is irreplaceable, its preservation is of an importance that overrides economic considerations
==> May be (premise-1) and may be not (premise-2,;can be allowed to decay). Eliminate

(B) the scientific analysis of museum exhibits can be performed in nondestructive way
==> May be not (premise-2,;allowed to decay, for scientific analysis). Eliminate

(C) eggs of extinct species should be analyzed to increase knowledge of genetic relationships among species
==> May be but no where mentioned in premise nor links with conclusion Eliminate

(D) it can be known at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future
==> links to and very close to conclusion. Let's keep this

(E) the decay of organic material in natural history exhibits is natural and cannot be prevented
==> No, this is ultimately saying that conslusion is false. In fact argument is all about, decay can be prevented, if funds are made available and efforts made (Premise-1). Eliminate

Woohooo...!! No more option to compare and analyze.
Since, Only one option remained that we could NOT eliminate on solid grounds. - that should be our final answer.

Hope this helps.

Hello, can an expert pls explain why A is wrong and D is right?
Is A wrong because of the "if a museum exhibit is irreplaceable" part? because the argument relies not on irreplaceability but value to science in the future?