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.
Toughest CR: Phramaceutical Companies
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?
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?
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.
I think the ans should be B. I have tried to give a long explanation fr that in my earlier reply.
- David@VeritasPrep
- 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
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.
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.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
- Thanked: 114 times
- Followed by:12 members
Conclusion: Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare.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.
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.
- imskpwr
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:1 members
I think C is not correct for the reason stated by patanjali. I also chose A as my ans; however, Kaplan says C.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.
- GMATGuruNY
- 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
I received a PM asking me comment.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.
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
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
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:04 am
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:4 members
Why is E wrong?GMATGuruNY wrote:I received a PM asking me comment.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.
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?
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:50 am
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 ?
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 ?
- GMATGuruNY
- 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
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
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
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
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?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.