Q18 - Those who claim that

[zhwpaul67]

Can not see why D is better than A. Please explain

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The short reason is that answer choice (A) shifts certain language in the argument.

The argument never concludes or suggests that it should be disputed whether food production has increased more rapidly than human population. The argument simply states that Mathus's prediction will be proven correct in the future. That means that at some point in the future food production will not keep up with demand.

The key difference between answer choices (A) and (D) is that (A) say "presently false" and (D) says "eventually false." The argument's conclusion does not require that the claim is presently false, but rather that it will eventually no longer be true.

Does that answer your question?

[nicokief]

This is a question from section 3..."those who claim that..." and the answer addresses question 18 section 2. Anyway I was interested in your thoughts LSATers on this question 18 from section 3...D is the best answer I think but E looks okay so I am curious your brilliant input if possible on this section 3 question 18. Thanks!

[morgansea]

I am no LSAT expert, but I stumbled across this question and was debating between D and E as well and chose D instead because it had the piece about 'unintended" benefits being produced by the projects. That is what the space project is, a project that creates 'unintended' benefits, but nevertheless, benefits. E is suggesting that the technological undertakings are a kind of project whose purpose is to 'attempt to advance the welfare of society'. This isn't consistent with "unexpected consequences' of the space project said in the stimulus. In a nut shell, the project in D with its unintended benefits is more consistent wtih the space project, whereas the technological undertakings in E are projects with the intention to create benefits to a society, less like the space project.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Exactly. And on a broader level, let me just point out what morgansea just did there. morgansea ensured that the premise linked the evidence with the conclusion of the argument. Sometimes we forget that the evidence needs to be involved and that we're not just seeking for a principle that with some trigger other than the evidence arrives at the correct conclusion. Such an answer would not be correct - such as answer choice (E). It's outcome that "governments should continues to dedicate resources" matches the language very well of the conclusion - in fact better than it is expressed in answer choice (D). But that doesn't mean it expresses a principle underlying the argument.

The argument core:

Unintended consequences of investments in space exploration have been positive.

===>

Government should continue to devote resources to space exploration.

The assumption there is best expressed in answer choice (D).

Let's just look at the incorrect answers here.

(A) is out of scope. The argument doesn't address "intended consequences"
(B) has nothing to do with whether governments should fund something
(C) has nothing to do with whether governments should fund something
(E) doesn't rely on the evidence in getting to the conclusion

Great work morgansea!

[zainrizvi]

By saying that government doesnt address intended consequences, can't you by the same logic say that it doesn't address unintended benefits either?

Or is there a difference in the relationships I'm not seeing?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

By saying that government doesnt address intended consequences, can't you by the same logic say that it doesn't address unintended benefits either?

The argument suggests that the intended (direct) consequences of space exploration are not something that really affects people. So the argument for space exploration does not rest on any claim about the direct (intended) consequences, but rather the unintended ones.

I should have been a bit more clear with the following point.

(A) is out of scope. The argument doesn't address "intended consequences"

It's not that the argument doesn't address the intended consequences, but that the intended consequences do not serve any particular role within the Argument Core. They instead form an opposing point that the author concedes on the way to the conclusion. Since they neither serve as evidence nor a conclusion, they should not have any role in the principle relating the evidence to the conclusion.

Hope that helps!

[zainrizvi]

I can see where you are going with this. But I want to ask a few questions for clarification

1) We do agree that allocating resources to projects whose intended consequences do not directly benefit society DOES encompass space exploration, right?

2) What you are saying is that the principle underlying the argument has to deal with the core, the basis of the argument. For example, the author isn't really saying "Hey lets support this because it consequences do not directly benefit most people. He's saying "hey lets support this because it has unintended benefits!"

I see that distinction now. But I think it's because in many, many most supported questions I've seen something of category Y being referenced has trait X, and it says something like "some member of Y has trait X". Basically the larger category is used to reference the particular. I thought the same thing was being done here in answer choice (A) but I didn't really recognize that YES that is being done, but does it really work with the core.

Does my thinking seem valid? I'm open to suggestions on how to approach such problems.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

1) We do agree that allocating resources to projects whose intended consequences do not directly benefit society DOES encompass space exploration, right?

That's true, at least according the claim in this argument that "most people's lives are relatively unaffected by the direct consequences of space." Though, personally, I might disagree with this claim.

2) What you are saying is that the principle underlying the argument has to deal with the core, the basis of the argument. For example, the author isn't really saying "Hey lets support this because it consequences do not directly benefit most people. He's saying "hey lets support this because it has unintended benefits!"

Exactly! We want to make sure the principle should connect the evidence to the conclusion, not the opposing point to the conclusion - as answer choice (A) attempts to do.

This insight (that I'm sure you'll now be looking out for) will make navigating the answer choices on Principle questions so much easier, because it gives you something to use when seeking to eliminate answer choices. It seems so simple, but without focus and a clear picture of which parts of an argument need to be connected, we can all get caught up in the fuzziness of the "big picture."

Great work!

[shirando21]

I missed this one, when I review I found it is very important to understand "it" in line 7, which refers to space exploration. Then I can see clearly what the argument says is:

1. space exploration has unexpected consequences which are many modern technologies that have a tremendous impact on daily life (benefits).

2. most people's lives are unaffected by the direct consequences of space exploration.

So, devoting resources to space exploration should not be dismissed solely because of 2. Instead, 1 should be considered as a legitimate reason to continue to support space exploration projects.

In answer choice D, space exploration projects are projects that have in the past produced unintended benefits, which are fiber optics, computers and lasers.

[steves]

1) We do agree that allocating resources to projects whose intended consequences do not directly benefit society DOES encompass space exploration, right?

That's true, at least according the claim in this argument that "most people's lives are relatively unaffected by the direct consequences of space." Though, personally, I might disagree with this claim.

2) What you are saying is that the principle underlying the argument has to deal with the core, the basis of the argument. For example, the author isn't really saying "Hey lets support this because it consequences do not directly benefit most people. He's saying "hey lets support this because it has unintended benefits!"

Exactly! We want to make sure the principle should connect the evidence to the conclusion, not the opposing point to the conclusion - as answer choice (A) attempts to do.

This insight (that I'm sure you'll now be looking out for) will make navigating the answer choices on Principle questions so much easier, because it gives you something to use when seeking to eliminate answer choices. It seems so simple, but without focus and a clear picture of which parts of an argument need to be connected, we can all get caught up in the fuzziness of the "big picture."

Great work!

I'm still a bit uncertain between (A) and (D). Overall, I agree that the author is seeking to implement (D). However, to weaken the opposing argument that devoting resources to space should not be continued, the author rebuffs the concept that resources should not be devoted if most people are not affected by the direct consequences. I thought that (A) was more specific to that issue, and that (D) was over-reaching a bit, so was not as safe an answer. Is this a difference between finding an assumption and a principle?

[rinagoldfield]

Steves, I think you perfectly answered your own question. When finding a principle, you want to find something broad and generically supportive of the conclusion.

Choice A does indeed offer a necessary assumption. The author agrees that the government should not be prevented from spending such money. However, his conclusion is that the government should actively spend on these programs, not just be prevented from spending. Thus A is too specific, while the broadness of D works for this question type.

[jm.kahn]

Steves, I think you perfectly answered your own question. When finding a principle, you want to find something broad and generically supportive of the conclusion.

Choice A does indeed offer a necessary assumption. The author agrees that the government should not be prevented from spending such money. However, his conclusion is that the government should actively spend on these programs, not just be prevented from spending. Thus A is too specific, while the broadness of D works for this question type.

I was between A and D and ended up picking A because I thought it was closer to the reasoning of the stim. The stim doesn't say that the government should "actively spend" on the programs, correct? It only says that "it is wrong to claim that government should not continue to devote resources to space exploration", which is not the same as saying "it is right to government to continue to devote resources to space exploration". Why is then the conclusion that government should actively spend on these programs?

Any expert clarification regarding this subtlety?

I missed this one, when I review I found it is very important to understand "it" in line 7, which refers to space exploration. Then I can see clearly what the argument says is:

1. space exploration has unexpected consequences which are many modern technologies that have a tremendous impact on daily life (benefits).

2. most people's lives are unaffected by the direct consequences of space exploration.

So, devoting resources to space exploration should not be dismissed solely because of 2. Instead, 1 should be considered as a legitimate reason to continue to support space exploration projects.

In answer choice D, space exploration projects are projects that have in the past produced unintended benefits, which are fiber optics, computers and lasers.

For principle-support question, it shouldn't matter that the principle connects "projects whose intended consequences do not directly benefit" or "projects whose unintended consequences benefit" as the former includes the latter. I don't think this is why A is wrong, as the choice that covers "projects whose intended consequences do not directly benefit" automatically covers "projects whose unintended consequences benefit".

[JohnZ880]

I was between A and D and ended up picking A because I thought it was closer to the reasoning of the stim. The stim doesn't say that the government should "actively spend" on the programs, correct? It only says that "it is wrong to claim that government should not continue to devote resources to space exploration", which is not the same as saying "it is right to government to continue to devote resources to space exploration". Why is then the conclusion that government should actively spend on these programs?

This is why, in blind review, I went with A over D. I thought the argument went like this:

(1) People claim that the government should not devote resources to space exploration because most people do not directly benefit,

(2) Conclusion: they are wrong to use this as a reason to halt the flow of resources to space exploration. Why...

(3) Because although we haven't benefitted directly, we have benefited indirectly. Put in a more general way, the arguer seems to suggest that direct consequences are not sufficient to halt the funding of space exploration, one must also consider the indirect consequences, which have been extremely positive.

(A) and (D) both seem to match, but "continue to support" was never explicitly stated in the paragraph, whereas we can account for all of (A) in the paragraph.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, given the correct answer choice, I think the LSAT wanted us to read the stimulus as saying:

(1) People think we should stop funding space exploration because it doesn't actually benefit us,

(2) While it doesn't directly benefit us, it does indirectly benefit us (computers, fiber optics, lasers),

(3) Therefore, the status quo should remain. (This is the most tricky part of the argument. By arguing against the conclusion the claims that we should discontinue devoting resources, he is implicitly arguing in favor of the status quo, which currently funds space exploration projects.)

Thus, (D) is superior to (A).