Here we have a strengthen with necessary premise question. Remember that a premise is necessary for a conclusion if the falsity of the premise guarantees or brings about the falsity of the conclusion. First we check to see if the answer choice strengthens the passage, and then, if it does strengthen, we negate the answer choice to see if its negation makes the argument fall apart. If the answer choice does both those things then it is our correct answer.
Our conclusion is "funds must be raised to preserve at least those exhibits that will be most valuable to science in the future."
Why? Without the "analyses of eggs from museums, the studies linking pesticides with the decline of birds of prey would have been impossible." But, millions of irreplaceable exhibits in natural history museums are currently allowed to decay.
Answer choice (D) states: "it can be known at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future."
Does this strengthen the argument? Yes. If it can be known at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future, then we should and can set aside funds for those exhibits that we know are most valuable to science in the future.
Negation: it cannot be known at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future.
Does this make the argument fall apart? Yes. If we cannot know at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future, then we cannot possibly set aside funds because we do not know which exhibits will be most valuable to science in the future.
Thus, answer choice (D) is the correct answer.
Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
stormbeelerNovember 9, 2015
Could you please analyze answer choice B and why it is incorrect. Thank you!
knoxygirlMay 15, 2017
Could you also explain why A is incorrect?
MehranMay 27, 2017
@stormbeeler (B) is irrelevant. Even if scientific analysis destroys the exhibit, that would not destroy the argument here, i.e. we should still preserve at least those exhibits that will be most valuable to science in the future.
For example, imagine the analyses of the eggs provided as an example in the argument, destroyed the eggs. That does not change the value of preserving those eggs so that such analysis can be conducted.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
MehranMay 27, 2017
@knoxygirl (A) does not strengthen this argument. This argument does not address the economic considerations of preserving irreplaceable museum exhibits.
It is about raising funds to preserve those exhibits that will be most valuable to science in the future.
