Exam LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning topic 1 question 160 discussion

Actual exam question from Test Prep's LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning

Question #: 160
Topic #: 1

[All LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning Questions]

Scientist: Some critics of public funding for this research project have maintained that only if it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project is continued public funding for it justified. If the critics were right about this, then there would not be the tremendous public support for the project that even its critics acknowledge.
If the scientist's claims are true, which one of the following must also be true?

A. The benefits derived from the research project are irrelevant to whether or not its funding is justified.
B. Continued public funding for the research project is justified.
C. Public support for the research project is the surest indication of whether or not it is justified.
D. There is tremendous public support for the research project because it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project.
E. That a public benefit can be indicated is not a requirement for the justification of the research project's continued public funding.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: E 🗳️
This ones tricky, and might have been a good candidate to skip during your first pass through the section. Its an Inference question, a kind thats typically not vulnerable to prephrasing, and it has a formal logic element jumbling together the terms "some," "only," "not," and the hypothetical "if." Eeek! Surely no picnic. But there is a clever way into this, and it involves working backwards, beginning at the end. Thats where the most concrete information appears, so it makes sense to note that and work from there. Here’s what we know: There is public support for the project; the critics acknowledge it. "If the critics were right about this" (referring to something that comes earlier), then there would NOT be support. But there is support, so guess what? The critics must be wrong. About what? About "this."
What’s "this"? It’s what the critics "maintain" in the first sentence: Public funding for the project is justified only if the public can see the benefit. In other words, the critics believe that the public seeing the benefit is required for public funding to be justified—the "only if" tells us that. And if the critics are wrong in thinking so, as we deduced above from the latter part of the stimulus, then the public seeing a benefit is NOT required for the justification of the public funding, choice E.

by [deleted] at March 9, 2025, 1:30 p.m.

Comments

Submit Cancel

Currently there are no comments in this discussion, be the first to comment!