Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
13 Oct 2021, 03:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
71% (02:04) correct
29%
(02:18)
wrong
based on 280
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Geneticist: Billions of dollars are spent each year on high-profile experiments that attempt to link particular human genes with particular personality traits. Though such experiments seem to promise a new understanding of human nature, they have few practical consequences. Meanwhile, more mundane and practical genetic projects—for example, those that look for natural ways to make edible plants hardier or more nutritious—are grossly underfunded. Thus, funding for human gene research should be reduced while funding for other genetic research should be increased.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the geneticist’s reasoning?
(A) Experiments that have the potential to help the whole human race are more worthwhile than those that help only a small number of people.
(B) Experiments that focus on the genetics of plants are more practical than those that focus on the genetics of human nature.
(C) Experiments that help prevent malnutrition are more worthwhile than those that help prevent merely undesirable personality traits.
(D) Experiments that have modest but practical goals are more worthwhile than those that have impressive goals but few practical consequences.
(E) Experiments that get little media attention and are not widely supported by the public are more valuable than are those that get much media coverage and have wide public support.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the geneticist’s reasoning?
(A) Experiments that have the potential to help the whole human race are more worthwhile than those that help only a small number of people.
(B) Experiments that focus on the genetics of plants are more practical than those that focus on the genetics of human nature.
(C) Experiments that help prevent malnutrition are more worthwhile than those that help prevent merely undesirable personality traits.
(D) Experiments that have modest but practical goals are more worthwhile than those that have impressive goals but few practical consequences.
(E) Experiments that get little media attention and are not widely supported by the public are more valuable than are those that get much media coverage and have wide public support.
16 Oct 2021, 03:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
I may agree with the geneticist in real life, but lawyers don’t make money by agreeing with people. I’m going to be a dick here, like always, and argue with the geneticist:
- 1) Why do we have to cut some programs in order to fund others? Why not just fund everything? Do there have to be losers in order for there to be winners?
2) Why the hell do we need to make edible plants hardier or more nutritious? Don’t we already have a surplus of calories and an obesity epidemic?
3) Why do you think that a new understanding of human nature isn’t valuable in and of itself? Isn’t it the meaning of life?
4) Even if a new understanding of human nature leads to only “a few practical consequences,” couldn’t those few consequences be incredibly useful? What if we found the gene for crime? If we could switch that gene off, wouldn’t that make it worth it? We could suspend our criminal justice system!
This process doesn’t take as long as you think. As I read, I’m constantly firing off attacks like this. It helps me better understand the argument.
The question asks us to find a principle that “most helps to justify” the geneticist’s reasoning. So, now that I’ve grilled him, I’m going to switch sides. I’ll pick the answer that most closely connects the geneticist’s facts to his conclusion.
A) Nah. We were never told whether human gene research helps the whole human race or whether other genetic research helps the whole human race. So this might be the start of a good answer, but it’s incomplete.
B) Nah. Just because something is “more practical” doesn’t mean we should fund it at the expense of everything else.
C) We were never told that the human gene research was targeted toward preventing “merely undesirable personality traits.” Maybe we’re not trying to prevent line-cutting, maybe we’re trying to prevent murder. That’s not “merely undesirable.” I don’t think this is it.
D) This is probably it. The geneticist says that other “mundane and practical” projects are available, and believes these should be funded at the expense of “high-profile” projects with “few practical consequences.” This answer says we should do exactly what he says. If that’s true, then he wins his case.
E) Public support was simply not a factor anywhere in the argument, so this answer is irrelevant.
The correct answer needs to connect the evidence in the argument to the conclusion of the argument, which makes our answer D.
22 Apr 2025, 03:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
Disprove me.
The correct answer is (A):
"Experiments that have the potential to help the whole human race are more worthwhile than those that help only a small number of people."
Reasoning:
The geneticist argues that experiments aimed at linking genes with personality traits (human gene research) have few practical consequences, and more mundane, practical genetic research (like making plants more nutritious) is underfunded. The reasoning to justify this would be that experiments which could help a larger number of people (e.g., practical genetic projects for food security, agriculture) are more valuable than high-profile human-focused experiments with little practical application.
Thus, (A) aligns best with this reasoning, as it supports the idea of prioritizing research that has broader, more practical benefits for humanity.
The correct answer is (A):
"Experiments that have the potential to help the whole human race are more worthwhile than those that help only a small number of people."
Reasoning:
The geneticist argues that experiments aimed at linking genes with personality traits (human gene research) have few practical consequences, and more mundane, practical genetic research (like making plants more nutritious) is underfunded. The reasoning to justify this would be that experiments which could help a larger number of people (e.g., practical genetic projects for food security, agriculture) are more valuable than high-profile human-focused experiments with little practical application.
Thus, (A) aligns best with this reasoning, as it supports the idea of prioritizing research that has broader, more practical benefits for humanity.
Bunuel
