- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:22 am
#36672
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen—Principle. The correct answer choice is (D)
The first step in solving this problem is to identify and isolate the geneticist’s conclusion. Most test
takers have little difficulty recognizing the final sentence as the conclusion of this sentence. Simply put,
the geneticist feels that less money should be spent on human gene research and more should be spent
on other types of more practical genetic research. The correct answer choice will provide a principle
that, if true, will strengthen this reasoning.
In each of the answer choices, the first portion of the answer choice is advocated over the second portion.
Obviously, the geneticist advocates the “plant” research projects over the “human” projects. Therefore,
the best answer choice will be one in which the first portion correctly characterizes “plant” research
(mundane but practical) and the second characterizes “human” research (high-profile but impractical).
Also, the correct answer choice must lead to the conclusion that more money should be spent on the
former than on the latter. Answer choices (A), (C) and (E) all incorrectly characterize at least one of
these types of research. Answer choice (B) provides no justification for the action recommended by the
stimulus, since proving that one type of research is more practical than the other does not justify the
funding change. Only answer choice (D) meets both of these criteria.
Answer choice (A): While the stimulus suggests that research into modifying edible plants has practical
application, it does not suggest that these experiments have the potential to help the whole human race.
Furthermore, the current lack of practical results from human genetic research does not indicate that
these experiments will help only a small number of people.
Answer choice (B): The task is not to prove the practicality of experiments that focus on the genetics
of plants; the correct answer choice should help to justify the proposed change in funding. This answer
choice is essentially a restatement of the third sentence in the stimulus and does not provide additional
justification for the argument.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice characterizes the cited “plant” research as experiments that help
prevent malnutrition, which seems fairly reasonable, but it mischaracterizes human genetic research.
High-profile experiments that attempt to link particular human genes with particular personality traits
will not necessarily prevent undesirable personality traits.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The geneticist describes “plant” research as
“more mundane and practical” than human genetic research. Although human genetic experiments
“seem to promise a new understanding of human nature,” they “have few practical consequences.”
Because this answer choice correctly characterizes both types of research and shows that the former is
more worthwhile than the latter, it strengthens the geneticist’s conclusion.
Answer choice (E): Human genetic experiments are described as high-profile in the stimulus, but that
does not indicate wide public support. Also, the fact that research into making edible plants hardier and
more nutritious is grossly underfunded does not mean that these experiments get little media attention or
lack public support. This answer choice cannot be used to support the geneticist’s conclusion.
Strengthen—Principle. The correct answer choice is (D)
The first step in solving this problem is to identify and isolate the geneticist’s conclusion. Most test
takers have little difficulty recognizing the final sentence as the conclusion of this sentence. Simply put,
the geneticist feels that less money should be spent on human gene research and more should be spent
on other types of more practical genetic research. The correct answer choice will provide a principle
that, if true, will strengthen this reasoning.
In each of the answer choices, the first portion of the answer choice is advocated over the second portion.
Obviously, the geneticist advocates the “plant” research projects over the “human” projects. Therefore,
the best answer choice will be one in which the first portion correctly characterizes “plant” research
(mundane but practical) and the second characterizes “human” research (high-profile but impractical).
Also, the correct answer choice must lead to the conclusion that more money should be spent on the
former than on the latter. Answer choices (A), (C) and (E) all incorrectly characterize at least one of
these types of research. Answer choice (B) provides no justification for the action recommended by the
stimulus, since proving that one type of research is more practical than the other does not justify the
funding change. Only answer choice (D) meets both of these criteria.
Answer choice (A): While the stimulus suggests that research into modifying edible plants has practical
application, it does not suggest that these experiments have the potential to help the whole human race.
Furthermore, the current lack of practical results from human genetic research does not indicate that
these experiments will help only a small number of people.
Answer choice (B): The task is not to prove the practicality of experiments that focus on the genetics
of plants; the correct answer choice should help to justify the proposed change in funding. This answer
choice is essentially a restatement of the third sentence in the stimulus and does not provide additional
justification for the argument.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice characterizes the cited “plant” research as experiments that help
prevent malnutrition, which seems fairly reasonable, but it mischaracterizes human genetic research.
High-profile experiments that attempt to link particular human genes with particular personality traits
will not necessarily prevent undesirable personality traits.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The geneticist describes “plant” research as
“more mundane and practical” than human genetic research. Although human genetic experiments
“seem to promise a new understanding of human nature,” they “have few practical consequences.”
Because this answer choice correctly characterizes both types of research and shows that the former is
more worthwhile than the latter, it strengthens the geneticist’s conclusion.
Answer choice (E): Human genetic experiments are described as high-profile in the stimulus, but that
does not indicate wide public support. Also, the fact that research into making edible plants hardier and
more nutritious is grossly underfunded does not mean that these experiments get little media attention or
lack public support. This answer choice cannot be used to support the geneticist’s conclusion.