BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Toughest CR: Phramaceutical Companies

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

Toughest CR: Phramaceutical Companies

by imskpwr » Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:09 pm
Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical companies exert too much influence upon medical research in universities. Only research proposals promising lucrative results are given serious consideration, and funding is usually awarded to scientists at large institutions who already have vast research experience. As a result, only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities, and graduate students will learn that their future research must conform to the expectations of the corporation. Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare.

Which of the following reactions of a pharmaceutical company representative would provide the strongest rebuttal to the comments above?

Many of the research projects funded by pharmaceutical companies do not end up being lucrative.

Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of graduate students.

If it were not for the funds which pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.

The committee members fail to discuss other methods of funding research projects.

Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

Please elaborate your answers.
OA and Source after discussion only.
Last edited by imskpwr on Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:56 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by swg » Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:39 am
Hi,

IMO, ans should be 'B'(Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of graduate students.).

This is how I chalked out the argument layout -
Author's opinion : Pharma companies have much influence upon research in univs. (bcoz of the funding they provide)
basis for funding - proposals "promising" lucrative results
Funding usually awarded to scientists @ large instituitions

(Main TOD) Author's conclusion - research is affected bcoz of pharma companies' influence :-
- only large institutes can develop facilities needed fr research
- students will learn that they hav to b choosy wrt research vis a vis company expectations

Possible strong rebuttal by a company rep can be if he/she can prove that, contrary to author's conclusion, major part of the pharma company funding is actually being

used for some reason other than the research wrk @ large institutes. This will show that the pharma company funding is in no way influencing research and that the

actual reason for restricted research is something else!
Choice B does this.


Work thru the other options -
A - its mentioned that proposals promising lucrative results - its an anticipation not a definite thing, so its possible that many projects r nt lucrative - this is nt

enuf to prove that company funding is not restricting research wrk.

C - in fact strengthens, that pharma company funding is influencing research wrk.

D - possible reason fr restricted research but does nt explain things frm pharma companies' side

E - again in a way supports the arg since it shows that pharma companies award funding selectively.


Please let me know if this is not correct?
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by imskpwr » Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:29 am
Even though it's showing 2 member reply here, I am unable to see any reply.......
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:56 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by swg » Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:05 am
I have posted my reply (accidentally twice! :)) - but its got blocked in spam and i have recvd an email stating that my post will get through after review (max 24 hrs). Till that time ....
I think the ans should be B. I have tried to give a long explanation fr that in my earlier reply.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by imskpwr » Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:24 am
any expert opinion.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:35 am
This question is from the Kaplan GMAT Verbal Workbook. Just want to make sure they get credit.

The answer should be C

The argument concludes that "Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare (since it is funded by the pharmaceutical companies)." What is the evidence for it being at the expense of human welfare? Well we see that several things are true: only larger universities get the money, only financially lucrative proposals are funded, and grad students learn to conform to the corporation.

Okay so assuming that these things are bad, the argument seems to be saying that research more conducive to improved human welfare would be conducted in the absence of the corporate funding.

Choice C directly contradicts this by stating that without the pharma funding very little research would be done at all. B does not weaken the argument because these students that are funded might still end up not doing the right research - given that they were corrupted by the pharma companies.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

by patanjali.purpose » Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:14 pm
David@VeritasPrep wrote:This question is from the Kaplan GMAT Verbal Workbook. Just want to make sure they get credit.

The answer should be C

The argument concludes that "Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare (since it is funded by the pharmaceutical companies)." What is the evidence for it being at the expense of human welfare? Well we see that several things are true: only larger universities get the money, only financially lucrative proposals are funded, and grad students learn to conform to the corporation.

Okay so assuming that these things are bad, the argument seems to be saying that research more conducive to improved human welfare would be conducted in the absence of the corporate funding.

Choice C directly contradicts this by stating that without the pharma funding very little research would be done at all. B does not weaken the argument because these students that are funded might still end up not doing the right research - given that they were corrupted by the pharma companies.
Conclusion: Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare.
Premise: Lots of bad things, but IMO KEY evidence is "Only research proposals promising lucrative results are given serious consideration"

Assumption: (1) no pre-screening feature to find projects that are good for human welfare
(2) it is possible for company to find whether a research is lucrative or not
(3) companies research are indeed lucrative

IMO argument does not say whether little or more research will be conducted - its say whether research is focused on lucrative projects or human welfare.

Even if little research is underway, argument will still be valid in the sense that such researches (little research) are not focused on human welfare. Little research can be profit orientated. Therefore, IMO C is NOT the correct answer.

IMO A is a better option (though not the best) that breaks the assumption that researchs are indeed lucrative.

Could you help me identify flaw in my reasoing for C/A.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:00 am
Thanked: 4 times

by rajcools » Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:24 am
I dont think this question is very good(GMAT material) as there are many options for which justification can be given. No one is clear cut winner.

David does C stand out to u?
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by imskpwr » Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:25 am
David@VeritasPrep wrote:This question is from the Kaplan GMAT Verbal Workbook. Just want to make sure they get credit.

The answer should be C

The argument concludes that "Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare (since it is funded by the pharmaceutical companies)." What is the evidence for it being at the expense of human welfare? Well we see that several things are true: only larger universities get the money, only financially lucrative proposals are funded, and grad students learn to conform to the corporation.

Okay so assuming that these things are bad, the argument seems to be saying that research more conducive to improved human welfare would be conducted in the absence of the corporate funding.

Choice C directly contradicts this by stating that without the pharma funding very little research would be done at all. B does not weaken the argument because these students that are funded might still end up not doing the right research - given that they were corrupted by the pharma companies.
I think C is not correct for the reason stated by patanjali. I also chose A as my ans; however, Kaplan says C.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:02 am
imskpwr wrote:Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical companies exert too much influence upon medical research in universities. Only research proposals promising lucrative results are given serious consideration, and funding is usually awarded to scientists at large institutions who already have vast research experience. As a result, only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities, and graduate students will learn that their future research must conform to the expectations of the corporation. Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare.

Which of the following reactions of a pharmaceutical company representative would provide the strongest rebuttal to the comments above?

Many of the research projects funded by pharmaceutical companies do not end up being lucrative.

Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of graduate students.

If it were not for the funds which pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.

The committee members fail to discuss other methods of funding research projects.

Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

Please elaborate your answers.
OA and Source after discussion only.
I received a PM asking me comment.

Premises are facts; the conclusion is an opinion.
The opinion expressed here is that pharmaceutical companies exert TOO MUCH INFLUENCE upon medical research, with the result that medical research is conducted AT THE EXPENSE OF HUMAN WELFARE.

To weaken this conclusion, the correct answer must show that pharmaceutical companies do not exert TOO MUCH influence and that research is NOT conducted AT THE EXPENSE OF HUMAN WELFARE.

Answer choice C does just that:
If it were not for the funds that pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.
Thus, the influence exerted by the pharmaceutical companies is BENEFICIAL: without it, very little medical research could be conducted at all.

The correct answer is C.

Answer choice A is irrelevant. It is stated as a FACT that ONLY RESEARCH PROPOSALS PROMISING LUCRATIVE RESULTS are given serious consideration. If some research turns out not to be lucrative, it will still be a FACT that only research proposals PROMISING lucrative results will be given serious consideration.

Also, be skeptical of the word MANY. How many is MANY?
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:04 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

by thestartupguy » Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:39 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
imskpwr wrote:Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical companies exert too much influence upon medical research in universities. Only research proposals promising lucrative results are given serious consideration, and funding is usually awarded to scientists at large institutions who already have vast research experience. As a result, only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities, and graduate students will learn that their future research must conform to the expectations of the corporation. Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare.

Which of the following reactions of a pharmaceutical company representative would provide the strongest rebuttal to the comments above?

Many of the research projects funded by pharmaceutical companies do not end up being lucrative.

Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of graduate students.

If it were not for the funds which pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.

The committee members fail to discuss other methods of funding research projects.

Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

Please elaborate your answers.
OA and Source after discussion only.
I received a PM asking me comment.

Premises are facts; the conclusion is an opinion.
The opinion expressed here is that pharmaceutical companies exert TOO MUCH INFLUENCE upon medical research, with the result that medical research is conducted AT THE EXPENSE OF HUMAN WELFARE.

To weaken this conclusion, the correct answer must show that pharmaceutical companies do not exert TOO MUCH influence and that research is NOT conducted AT THE EXPENSE OF HUMAN WELFARE.

Answer choice C does just that:
If it were not for the funds that pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.
Thus, the influence exerted by the pharmaceutical companies is BENEFICIAL: without it, very little medical research could be conducted at all.

The correct answer is C.

Answer choice A is irrelevant. It is stated as a FACT that ONLY RESEARCH PROPOSALS PROMISING LUCRATIVE RESULTS are given serious consideration. If some research turns out not to be lucrative, it will still be a FACT that only research proposals PROMISING lucrative results will be given serious consideration.

Also, be skeptical of the word MANY. How many is MANY?
Why is E wrong?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:50 am

by bhopalkararpit » Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:51 pm
Hello Mitch,
Ans choice B is also doing the welfare required...whereas Ans choice C is also not very clear .. Can u please elaborate what is the error is ans choice B ?
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:07 pm
bhopalkararpit wrote:Hello Mitch,
Ans choice B is also doing the welfare required...whereas Ans choice C is also not very clear .. Can u please elaborate what is the error is ans choice B ?


It is stated as a PREMISE -- as a FACT NOT IN DISPUTE -- that funding is usually awarded to SCIENTISTS WHO ALREADY HAVE VAST RESEARCH EXPERIENCE.
Answer choice B -- which states that much of the funding goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of grad students -- tries to weaken this premise.
A premise is a FACT; it cannot be disputed.
Any answer choice that tries to weaken a premise can be eliminated.
Eliminate B.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by imskpwr » Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:21 pm
Why C in below CR is not a premise weakener.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/pizza-t115744.html
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:05 pm
David@VeritasPrep wrote:This question is from the Kaplan GMAT Verbal Workbook. Just want to make sure they get credit.

The answer should be C

The argument concludes that "Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare (since it is funded by the pharmaceutical companies)." What is the evidence for it being at the expense of human welfare? Well we see that several things are true: only larger universities get the money, only financially lucrative proposals are funded, and grad students learn to conform to the corporation.

Okay so assuming that these things are bad, the argument seems to be saying that research more conducive to improved human welfare would be conducted in the absence of the corporate funding.

Choice C directly contradicts this by stating that without the pharma funding very little research would be done at all. B does not weaken the argument because these students that are funded might still end up not doing the right research - given that they were corrupted by the pharma companies.
David - Can you please explain why E) is incorrect? If ONLY large universities are equipped to do the research, pharma companies are not wrong in funding ONLY large univ. Correct?
Top
Post new topic Post Reply