Scientist: Some critics of public funding for this research project have maintained that only if it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project is continued public funding for it justified. ██ ███ ███████ ████ █████ █████ █████ ████ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ████████████
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
The inference the stimulus is designed to produce is “The critics are wrong about the claim that indicating how the public will benefit is necessary for the public funding to be justified.” In other words, indicating public benefit is NOT required to justify public funding for the project.
This inference is warranted because if the critics were right, there would not be tremendous public support. But there is tremendous public support. This triggers the contrapositive and proves the critics are wrong.
If the scientist's claims are █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ██ █████
The benefits derived ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████
Continued public funding ███ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████████
Public support for ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██ ██ ██████████
There is tremendous ██████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
That a public ███████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █ ███████████ ███ ███ █████████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ █████████ ██████ ████████
