What is the main conclusion of the passage?
Critics of space exploration ask why we should spend money on distant planets while problems at home remain unsolved. The question sounds unanswerable, but its logic proves too much. Almost any expenditure that is not directly aimed at the most pressing human need could be challenged in the same way, including the arts, sport and much basic science. The relevant comparison is not between space and poverty but between space and the other things that governments do with comparable sums, many of which are far less defensible. Spending on exploration has produced technologies in materials, imaging and communication that have had uses far beyond their original purpose. This does not show that the present level of funding is right; it shows that the standard criticism does not settle the matter.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: D. The objection that space spending neglects problems at home does not by itself show that the spending is wrong
- Step 1: The last sentence says the standard criticism does not settle the matter and that the present level of funding may or may not be right.
- Step 2: The only choice consistent with this is "The objection that space spending neglects problems at home does not by itself show that the spending is wrong".
Answer
The objection that space spending neglects problems at home does not by itself show that the spending is wrong.
Why not the others: The author does not rank space first, postpone poverty, endorse current funding or cut the arts.
Practise more Science policy.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.