Eureka

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

Eureka

by siddus » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:46 am
Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of serendipity, the chances discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought. Now, however, scientific research tends to be so costly that investigators are heavily dependent on large grants to fund their research. Because such grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research, investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research. Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances, serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research.

(B) In the past few scientific investigators attempted to make clear predictions of the outcome of their research.

(C) Dependence on large grants is preventing investigators from conducting the type of scientific research that those investigators would personally prefer.

(D) All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research receive at least some of the grants for which they apply.

(E) In general the most valuable scientific discoveries are the product of serendipity.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:51 am
IMO A.

Because, "discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought" gives indication that the investigators are currently unable to purposely seek due to the projections they made before starting their work.

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:21 am
kvcpk wrote:IMO A.

Because, "discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought" gives indication that the investigators are currently unable to purposely seek due to the projections they made before starting their work.
great reasoning!

We can use the Kaplan denial test to prove that the author's reasoning depends on choice A. Choice A reads:
Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research
whose denial is:
NOT only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research
which can be rephrased as:
Findings that an investigator doesn't purposely seek can directly bear on that investigator's research
in which case, even under the grant's limitations, a researcher may hit upon something serendipitously, and the argument is defeated. Because the denial of choice A defeats the argument, the argument's reasoning relies on choice A.

Choose A.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto