hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Speaker A: "It would be a mistake to cut funding for the space program. Scientific discoveries from space research have generated technologies worth billions in commercial applications."
Speaker B: "Those same billions could have been generated more efficiently if the funds had been invested directly into Earth-based medical research instead."
On the basis of their statements, Speaker A and Speaker B are committed to disagreeing about which of the following?
- Whether routing the same dollars into terrestrial medical research would have yielded comparable commercial value at lower cost than the space program did.
- Whether improving human health, rather than economic return, ought to be the chief objective that guides and justifies the space program's continued funding.
- Whether any of the lucrative commercial technologies that are commonly attributed to space research genuinely originated in space-program work at all.
- Whether the sizable dollar value generated by past space research is genuinely large enough to be fairly and accurately characterized as substantial.
- Whether Earth-based medical research is, under present government budgets, already funded at a level that could reasonably be considered fully appropriate.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ