We are told that "some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare." However, the arguer explains that this is not a good stance to take because it ignores the lessons of experience. It explains that many important contributions to the public welfare came from scientific research that were never predicted as potential outcomes of that research. It brings up the example of studying mold, which led to the discovery of antibiotics--one of the greatest contributions ever made to public welfare.
Thus, the argument is trying to prove that the way that "some legislators" think, i.e. that they refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if it cannot be assumed that the research will contribute to the public welfare, is not correct because if we had to be assured that the research would contribute to public welfare, then major discoveries might not be made.
So, answer choice (E): "Lack of guarantees that new scientific research will contribute to the public welfare is not sufficient reason for legislators to refuse to commit public funds to new scientific research," is the correct answer. As you can see, every other sentence in the argument supports answer choice (E).
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
AlexApril 7, 2015
Please explain why D is not the main point.
NazApril 14, 2015
It's important to understand that the argument is not saying that committing public funds to new scientific research is necessary or required to ensure that scientific research is directed toward contributing to the public welfare--only that many contributions to public welfare resulted from scientific research.
Answer choice (D) is something the argument never discusses, and therefore, it cannot be the main point of the argument.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
yababio May 19, 2015
So what's the conclusion and whats the premise. You didn't break it down. This is why i need videos for every single question that long paragraph you wrote just confused me more then you guys email me asking me to rate you 5 out of 5 at the google play store.
NazMay 19, 2015
I'm sorry if you felt it wasn't clearly explained in the thread above. Seeing as this is a Main Point question, there is no visual aspect to the reasoning--meaning, there is no need for a video explanation.
Let me try and break it down again for you. As stated in the thread above: "the argument is trying to prove," i.e. the main point of the argument is, that the policy of these legislators who refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research is incorrect/mistaken.
Why is it incorrect? Remember, the "why" or the reasoning of the argument is the premise. So what is the reasoning? Because their position does not take into account the lessons of experience, e.g. experience has shown that the study of molds led to the discovery of antibiotics; however, the scientists who studied mold had no idea that would be the outcome. So, if these legislators had not allowed for public funds to be committed to the study of molds, then antibiotics would have never been discovered.
Thus, the main point is that these legislators are mistaken in their position, which is exactly what answer choice (E) says: "lack of guarantees that new scientific research will contribute to the public welfare is not sufficient reason for legislators to refuse to commit public funds to new scientific funds."
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
