GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Feb 2019, 02:22

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in February
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272812
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT RC Webinar

February 23, 2019

February 23, 2019

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Learn reading strategies that can help even non-voracious reader to master GMAT RC. Saturday, February 23rd at 7 AM PT
• ### FREE Quant Workshop by e-GMAT!

February 24, 2019

February 24, 2019

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Get personalized insights on how to achieve your Target Quant Score.

# Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific rese

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 307
GMAT 1: 560 Q42 V25
GMAT 2: 570 Q43 V27
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V39
Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific rese  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jul 2018, 02:20
6
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

73% (01:49) correct 27% (02:03) wrong based on 200 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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
Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 4391
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific rese  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2018, 08:10
urvashis09 wrote:
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

The author counters the Legislators view by stating that since results of scientific research (Towards public welfare) cannot be predicted, the decision of not to commit Public Fund for Scientific Research is unjustified. Further, in support of his view, he has given the example of the discovery of antibiotics.

Thus the author's main point in the stimulus lies in the fact that Uncertainty of the results of scientific research should not be the only reason for denying public funds for scientific research (Which may contribute to Public welfare), Answer has to be (E)
_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )

Intern
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 7
Re: Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific rese  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2018, 18:58
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
Intern
Joined: 05 Jun 2018
Posts: 27
GMAT 1: 560 Q49 V18
Re: Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific rese  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2018, 20:18
2
urvashis09 wrote:
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

Please someone explain how is B wrong.
Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2018
Posts: 226
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 580 Q47 V23
GMAT 2: 640 Q49 V27
GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific rese  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2018, 22:31
1
1

The main point of an argument is not only a salient point, but one which draws on the rest of the argument for support. The primary purpose of an argument such as that in the passage on which this question is based is to convince the reader to accept the main point. The passage begins by stating the position that some legislators hold. These legislators “refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare.”

Then a reason is given for rejecting this position. Many important contributions to the public welfare come from scientific research for which no assurance could be given of a contribution to public welfare. These contributions “that resulted from scientific research were never predicted as potential outcomes of that research.” Finally, this
reason is emphasized by giving an example. Clearly the purpose of this argument is to refute the position of the legislators mentioned. The main point is the denial of that position. Since response (E) most accurately expresses the denial of the legislators’ position, it is the correct answer.

Response (A) is incorrect because it expresses a point that the argument does not make. Nothing is expressed or implied about whether committing public funds for new scientific research ensures that public welfare will be enhanced. All that is said is that legislators ought not to insist on assurances of enhanced public welfare before committing public funds for new scientific research.

Response (B) is incorrect because it is a prediction of what legislators would do in cases where it is possible to predict the outcome of scientific research. The argument states what the legislators would not do if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare. Moreover, nothing is stated or implied about what
legislators would do, the issue is rather what legislators should do. (B) implies that if it is possible to predict a negative outcome of a new scientific research effort, then legislators would not refuse to commit public funds for that effort. Nothing in the argument suggests anything close to this.

Response (C) is incorrect because it speculates that scientific discoveries that have contributed to the public welfare would have occurred sooner if public funds had been committed to the underlying research. Response (C) takes the argument much further than it has committed itself—the issue of whether any discoveries may have occurred sooner is never addressed within the argument.

Response (D) is incorrect because it addresses an issue that is not discussed in the argument. The argument does not say that the existence of research contributing to the public’s welfare is conditional upon legislators committing public funds to that research.

OPTION: E
_________________

____________________________
Regards,

Chaitanya

+1 Kudos

if you like my explanation!!!

Re: Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific rese   [#permalink] 29 Dec 2018, 22:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by