Q6 - Astronomer: This country's space agency

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Principle Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
NASA has spent a lot on a telescope, and it's more than halfway done. Thus, they should keep going.

Answer Anticipation:
While this argument is falling into the sunk cost fallacy, we're trying to justify it. Thus, we want an answer that says falling for the sunk cost fallacy is good - if you've spent a lot on something and made a lot of progress, even if it's over budget, you should keep building. Note that saying, "A plan to stop Project X is mistaken" commits you to believing that Project X should continue.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. We don't get information about the agency's budget, just the budget of this project.

(B) Bingo. We can infer that the project is over halfway done because the money already spent is more than the remaining cost, and this justifies the conclusion to keep building.

(C) Out of scope/opposite. The astronomer only states the project is over budget, but that's not enough to infer that the final cost will be double the budget. This answer would also only justify an argument in favor of cancelling the project; we need an answer that justifies continuing it.

(D) Opposite. This answer is stating that you shouldn't fall for the sunk cost fallacy; the astronomer shares no such concern.

(E) Out of scope. The likelihood of the telescope leading to discovering is never discussed, nor are other projects. Nor is it established that the government needs to decide between projects.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Make sure to translate the conclusion into easier language. Here, it's important to change "Doing X is mistaken" to "We shouldn't do X".

#officialexplanation

[YuriJ257]

I'm just curious but... where does it say that the building the new space telescope is halfway done? I just tried to infer from "more than the additional cost required to complete the project" (whatever that means, please help) would equal "more than half of the total cost of a budget" (in AC B). Because additional cost must be over the budget already, and therefore, the total cost (which I'm assuming is the total budget) has already been exceeded, which means B is correct. I just don't get your version of the stimulus & connecting it to B. Please help.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think Matt was just being loose / informal with language.

The stimulus doesn't tell us that the project is more than halfway done, from a construction/time standpoint.

But it tells us that the project is more than halfway done, from an expenditure standpoint.

If we've already spent $1 million, then the remaining cost has to be less than $1 million.

Let's say it's $900,000 remaining.

The total cost would end up being $1,900,000.

At this point, has "more than half of the total cost already been spent"? Yes.

And any mathematical example we come up with will fit the same mold.
If we've already spent $10, then the remaining cost has to be less than $10, so the maximum total cost would be $19.99

If the total cost ended up being $19.99, and we've already spent $10, then has "more than half of the total cost already been spent"? Yes.

Hope this helps.

[StratosM31]

(A) Out of scope. We don't get information about the agency's budget, just the budget of this project.

It can also be interpreted as the agency's overall budget for this project, I don't think this is the problem.

The AC basically says: cancel --> money spent small relative to overall-budget --> not over-budget.

While the astronomer says: [money already spent > additional money required] + [money spent would be wasted] --> don't cancel.

Therefore, the reason why (A) is wrong in my opinion is that the principle would not justify the astronomer's argument! The fact that the new space telescope is over-budget is only mentioned in the context, it is NOT used by the astronomer as a premise for his conclusion.

If we take the contrapositive of what is stated in (A), it would be: over-budget --> don't cancel. If valid, it would only justify the conclusion, NOT the astronomer's argument (which is more than its conclusion, means it also consists of the premise that supports it)!

It's like I'm saying "Pork has a lot of fat. Mohammad eats pork every day. But, in my opinion, he should not continue doing that, as it is not in accordance with his religion."

Does the principle: "A person should not eat pork unless it contains little to no fat" justify my argument?