PT7.S4.Q02 - Some legislators refuse to commit public funds

e.g.spera

Hi! I'm having trouble distinguishing why option B was incorrect when option E was correct in problem PT7 S4 Q02. Would someone be able to explain it for me?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Moeow_Inosuke

I will give it a try! I think a helpful way practice this type of question is to parse out the argument structure. The prompt first stated some legislaters' view on the usage of public funds and then criticizes their view as reductive in defining the "contribution to public welfare" aka "ignores the lessons of experience" (the conclusion). The rest is the support for the conclusion - exactly how the legislators earlier in the argument ignores the lessons of experience, strengthened by an example of the discovery of antibiotics as a unexpected outcome from the study of mold. The main point, then, is say hey don't be so restrictive in terms of considering what is useful to public welfare, think about mold and antibiotics! The study of mold doesn't seem so useful at first does it, but it did paved the way for the development of antibiotics!

B is neither the main point nor its logical relationship matches up with the prompt. In the prompt, it says if those legislators cannot be assured the contribution to the public welfare, then they refuse. That doesn't mean if they are assured, they will not refuse. Even if you negate it, it will be [if they dont refuse, then they are assured about the contribution to the public welfare]. In other words, being assured is not a sufficient assumption to their non-refusal of public funds.

Hope this helps!