Astronomer: This country's space agency is currently building a new space telescope that is, unfortunately, way over budget. Some people argue that the project should be canceled. But Conclusion that would be a mistake. Support If we cancel it now, all the money that has already been spent—which is more than the additional cost required to complete the project—would be wasted.
The astronomer concludes that a project to build a new telescope should not be canceled, even though it's way over budget. So why not cancel it? Because more than half of the total cost to finish the project has already been spent, and cancelling now would put that to waste.
To justify this reasoning, we have to find a bridge from the argument's premise to its conclusion. The astronomer's argument basically embodies the sunk-cost fallacy, the assumption that if you've already sunk a large cost into something, you should keep going rather than wasting what's been spent. So that's the bridge we need to find: that ifmost of the cost of a project has already been spent, then the project should not be cancelled.
Keep in mind that although we've prephrased it as a straightforward conditional, there are many ways that the correct answer could be phrased. So instead of looking for exact wording, focus on the underlying ideas. The answer needs to be triggered by the premise that most of the telescope's cost is already spent, and needs to bridge to the conclusion that we should keep the project going.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to justify the astronomer's argument?
A government agency should not cancel a partially completed project unless the amount of money already spent on the project is small relative to the agency's overall budget.
In other words, if the spending on a project amounts to a significant portion of the agency's overall budget, then it should not be cancelled. While the necessary condition here is correct, the sufficient condition isn't; (A) isn't triggered by the stimulus.
It's subtle, but the details matter here: the sufficient condition for (A) is about the sunk cost proportional to the agency's overall budget, but the stimulus never mentions the space agency's overall budget. The correct answer needs to trigger based on the proportion of the project budget that's already been spent, and that's not the case with (A).
If more than half of the total cost of a project has already been spent, then the project should be completed.
(B) is properly triggered by the stimulus: the money already spent is more than the additional cost required for completion, i.e. more than half. And (A) leads to the correct conclusion that we should complete the project, i.e. not cancel it. This effectively bridges the gap in the astronomer's reasoning, justifying the argument.
If it becomes clear that the total cost of a project will be more than twice the amount originally budgeted, then the project should be canceled.
There are two issues here: (C) doesn't trigger, and it leads to the wrong conclusion. We know that the project is over budget, but we don't know if it will cost more than twice the original budget, so (C) doesn't trigger. And even if it did, it would tell us to cancel the project, when the conclusion we need is not to cancel.
One should not commit additional funding to a project just because one has spent considerable money on it in the past.
This is basically the opposite of the assumption the astronomer relies on, so does not justify the argument. The astronomer's whole argument is that we've spent so much already, we may as well finish the project. (D) says that past spending is not a reason to keep going, which would undermine the astronomer's reasoning.
In determining which scientific projects to fund, governments should give priority to the projects that are most likely to lead to important new discoveries.
We have no idea how likely the telescope—or any other project—is to lead to any new discoveries, so (E) isn't triggered by the stimulus. The correct answer needs to apply based on the amount of money that's already been spent on the telescope, not any other consideration.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic