LSAT Explanation PT 43, S3, Q11: Geneticist: Billions of dollars are spent

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the geneticist's reasoning? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Principle question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the passage's argument. The geneticist's argument can be broken down as follows:

Premise 1: Billions of dollars are spent on high-profile human gene experiments with few practical consequences.

Premise 2: More mundane and practical genetic projects, like those involving edible plants, are grossly underfunded.

Conclusion: Funding for human gene research should be reduced while funding for other genetic research should be increased.

To help illustrate this argument, let's use a simple example. Imagine two scientists: one is researching how to make a better-tasting ice cream, while the other is researching how to grow crops that can withstand harsh weather conditions. The ice cream research is getting a lot of attention and funding, but the crop research is underfunded. The geneticist is arguing that we should reduce funding for the ice cream research and increase funding for the crop research because the latter has more practical benefits.

Now, let's come up with an "Evaluate" question for this argument: "Do the practical consequences of each type of research justify the proposed change in funding?"

The question type for this problem is Principle, meaning we need to find an answer choice that supports the geneticist's conclusion. Let's evaluate each answer choice:

a) This answer choice does not fully support the geneticist's conclusion, as it doesn't specifically address the practical consequences of each type of research. It also doesn't indicate that the plant research has the potential to help the whole human race.

b) While this answer choice states that plant genetic research is more practical than human genetic research, it doesn't provide a justification for the change in funding. It merely restates part of the geneticist's argument.

c) This answer choice mischaracterizes human genetic research as focusing on preventing undesirable personality traits, which is not the case. It also doesn't provide a justification for the change in funding.

d) This answer choice correctly characterizes both types of research and shows that the more mundane and practical research (like plant genetics) is more worthwhile than the high-profile human genetic research with few practical consequences. This supports the geneticist's conclusion, making it the correct answer.

e) This answer choice doesn't accurately characterize the research types in the passage and doesn't provide a justification for the change in funding. The level of media attention and public support doesn't necessarily determine the value of the research or justify the proposed funding changes.