LR Question 18 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Some critics of space exploration programs claim that…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Must be True
FACTS:
- Some people say space exploration is too expensive.
- It’s also very risky.
- And cutting budgets increased the risk of space exploration.
ANALYSIS: About the only information we can get from the passage is that there are a couple of problems with space exploration and that if we cut costs we’ll make the safety problem worse.
___________
- CORRECT. By trying to solve the cost problem we increased the safety problem.
- Unfortunately, it’s not clear that we made any scientific progress. We just cut costs a bit.
- Safety was sacrificed for cost, not speed.
- We have no clue if the mistakes were bureaucratic or instead were causes by defects in the manufacturing process. We only know that cost-cutting was the ultimate cause.
- This isn’t clear. We haven’t been told of the benefits of space exploration. They might be large enough to justify the risk.
More Resources for Principle Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Principle questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers principle questions.
How is B wrong?? Just because we are unsure of scientific progress does not mean at all that it is not in the name of scientific progress!
How is C wrong?? The critic literally says the manufacturing flaws were a direct consequence of the pressure to produce results AS QUICKLY and cheaply as possible!
Someone please clarify this as I am very confused.
The safety risks aren’t being ignored. Real money is being spent on these programs and a portion of that is spent on safety. Budgets cuts have decreased safety but that doesn’t mean there are no safety precautions.
C says often. Whereas the stimulus only cites *one* program where safety was compromised to reach a goal quickly. We don’t know if this happens often. Hopefully it doesn’t!
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.