Q11 - Pure Science - research

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Determine the Function

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: If your society wants to benefit from pure science, it ought to use public funds to support such research.
Evidence: Pure science is a public good. It requires a lot of money, with no short term profits. And corporations won't support stuff that doesn't yield short term profits.

Any prephrase?
The claim we're asked about is a Premise. It's part of how we get to the conclusion that we ought to use PUBLIC FUNDS to support pure science. Why public funds? Because corporations won't be willing to fund it.

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
A) Nope, it's a premise.

B) No, the stuff in between the dashes explains "pure science".

C) It's a premise, not a distraction.

D) "Supports the Conc" = Premise. And the effect it has is suggest that "public funds" will be needed since "corporate fundts" aren't an option.

E) Not an illustration of a sad case. Just a practical statement that we can't get this pure science money from corporations.

Takeaway/Pattern: Given that the claim in question is prefaced by "since", we know it's a premise. That immediately eliminates (A) and (C) and makes (D) the best initial match. Ultimately, the answer hinges not just on knowing that the claim is a supporting idea but understanding where it gets its persuasive value. We only care about whether corporations would fund pure science because if they WOULD, then public funds wouldn't be needed.

#officialexplanation

[lsatgotrocked]

Identify the role of a certain part of an argument.

Simply read the stimulus and make note of what is a conclusion, intermediate conclusion, premise, opposing point, or background information. ONCE THIS IS DONE then you go to the answers.

Conclusion - A society that wants to ... use public funds.

Premise - Private corporations won't do it.

Background information - Pure science - research with no immediate commercial or technological application... and such research requires a lot of financial support and doesn't yield profits in the short term.

I clearly see that this is functioning as eliminating other ways that one could potentially argue would be a good way to support this type of science. This is shown in answer choice D.

A.) See above format.
B.) This does not in any way explain what pure research is.
C.) It distracts attention? If anything, it further zeros in on the issue by eliminating ways that wouldn't work.
E.) Nothing about some unfortunate consequences discussed in the argument and nothing about people failing to accept a recommendation.

Hope this helps you all.