Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare. Such a position ignores the lessons of experience. Many important contributions to the public welfare that resulted from scientific research were never predicted as potential outcomes of that research. Suppose that a scientist in the early twentieth century had applied for public funds to study molds: who would have predicted that such research would lead to the discovery of antibiotics—one of the greatest contributions ever made to the public welfare?

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the argument?


(A) The committal of public funds for new scientific research will ensure that the public welfare will be enhanced.

(B) If it were possible to predict the general outcome of a new scientific research effort, then legislators would not refuse to commit public funds for that effort.

(C) Scientific discoveries that have contributed to the public welfare would have occurred sooner if public funds had been committed to the research that generated those discoveries.

(D) In order to ensure that scientific research is directed toward contributing to the public welfare, legislators must commit public funds to new scientific research.

(E) Lack of guarantees that new scientific research will contribute to the public welfare is not sufficient reason for legislators to refuse to commit public funds to new scientific research.


Source: LSAT

Same strategy for Strengthen question

1. Read whole passage - Understand logic and Conclusion
2. Most cases - Conclusion won't be there, Conclusion is strengthener - pre-think possible ways - 1 for strengthening logic and one for strengthening conclusion
3. Rule out options

Here no conclusion given in passage. In that case mostly answer would be something that summarizes and makes a conclusion

Lets pre-think now.

What is conclusion here ?

- Predicting result is not possible, so legislator should not issue funds on basis of outcome expected

What can strengthen logic here ?

- Some example or stats which would says many outcomes are far better than what initially thought or planned

Only E fits in