What does the author mean by saying the criticism 'proves too much'?
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: A. If it were sound it would also condemn many other expenditures that nobody wants to abandon
- Step 1: The next sentence says almost any expenditure not aimed at the most pressing need could be challenged the same way.
- Step 2: A conclusion that reaches too far is said to prove too much.
Answer
If it were sound it would also condemn many other expenditures that nobody wants to abandon.
Why not the others: The expression refers to an argument with unacceptable consequences, not to proof of waste, abolition, complexity or advocacy.
Practise more Science policy.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.