Those who claim that governments should not continue to devote resources to space exploration are wrong. Although most people's lives are relatively unaffected by the direct consequences of space exploration, many modern technologies that have a tremendous impact on daily life—e.g., fiber optics, computers, and lasers—are unexpected consequences of it. Society might have missed the benefits of these technologies if governments had not devoted resources to space exploration.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the principle underlying the argument provided?
1.Governments should not be prevented from allocating resources to projects whose intended consequences do not directly benefit most people.
the argument, instead, implies that the project whose intended consequences do not directly benefit most people but that produce unintended benefit should not be prevented2.One can never underestimate the beneficial consequences of government support of ambitious technological undertakings.
out of scope. if that is not true, the argument still can be true.3.The less practical the goal of a government-supported project, the more unexpected the consequences of that project.
out of scope. if that is not true, the argument still can be true.4.Governments should continue to support those projects that have, in the past, produced unintended benefits.
correct. if that's not true, then there is no ground to conclude that the projects those produced unintended benefit should continue5.In attempting to advance the welfare of society, governments should continue to dedicate resources to ambitious technological undertakings.
its not relevant to the argument. If its not true, i.e. the government should not continue to dedicate resources to ambitious technological undertakings, its still true that the government should continue those produce unintended profits to people