Passage Summary: Critics argue that we should only fund projects with clear public benefits, but the scientist points out that the high level of public support for this project proves the critics' logic is flawed.

Conclusion: The critics' claim that public funding is only justified if public benefit is demonstrated is incorrect.

Reasoning: If the critics' requirement were true, the project would lack the widespread public support it currently enjoys.

Analysis: This stimulus uses a conditional logic structure known as Modus Tollens: if the critics were right, we would see a specific result (lack of support), but since we see the opposite result (tremendous support), the critics must be wrong. To find the 'Must be True' answer, focus on the logical inference that the public's support is not dependent on a demonstration of benefit. We are essentially looking for a statement that confirms the critics' necessary condition for justification has failed to manifest in reality. Avoid any choices that speculate on *why* the public supports the project beyond what is explicitly stated.