voodoo_child wrote:

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?

They key in (E) is that it discusses only the kind of research Big Pharma funds. The author isn't criticized Pharmaceutical companies' choice of big universities--he's criticizing the type of research they are conducting, with comments such as "only...lucrative results" and "conform to the expectations of the corporation." Therefore, where that questionable research happens to occur doesn't affect the argument at all--rather, we need to show that such research, regardless of location, is beneficial and is not conducted "at the expense of human welfare." That's what (C) does.

KapTeacherEli wrote:

voodoo_child wrote:

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?

They key in (E) is that it discusses only the kind of research Big Pharma funds. The author isn't criticized Pharmaceutical companies' choice of big universities--he's criticizing the type of research they are conducting, with comments such as "only...lucrative results" and "conform to the expectations of the corporation." Therefore, where that questionable research happens to occur doesn't affect the argument at all--rather, we need to show that such research, regardless of location, is beneficial and is not conducted "at the expense of human welfare." That's what (C) does.

Why?

The conclusion is : Research will continue to be conducted at the cost of human welfare. The author provides a bunch of evidences : only large universities will be able to conduct the research; students' research will conform to the expectations of the companies.

However, if only large univ are the ones that CAN conduct the research, isn't the argument against companies weakened? Another point could be made that the author assumes that the expectations of the companies don't comply with human welfare. However, both the statements will equally kill the argument.

Thoughts?

voodoo_child wrote:
Why?

The conclusion is : Research will continue to be conducted at the cost of human welfare. The author provides a bunch of evidences : only large universities will be able to conduct the research; students' research will conform to the expectations of the companies.

However, if only large univ are the ones that CAN conduct the research, isn't the argument against companies weakened? Another point could be made that the author assumes that the expectations of the companies don't comply with human welfare. However, both the statements will equally kill the argument.

Thoughts?

Bolded the key part. "The research" is at issue--universities are the only places that can conduct PHARMA research. However, it's entirely possible that non-pharma research, the type of research that the author complains is stifled because it does not "conform to the expectations of the corporation," could be performed anywhere.

KapTeacherEli wrote:

voodoo_child wrote:
Why?

The conclusion is : Research will continue to be conducted at the cost of human welfare. The author provides a bunch of evidences : only large universities will be able to conduct the research; students' research will conform to the expectations of the companies.

However, if only large univ are the ones that CAN conduct the research, isn't the argument against companies weakened? Another point could be made that the author assumes that the expectations of the companies don't comply with human welfare. However, both the statements will equally kill the argument.

Thoughts?

Bolded the key part. "The research" is at issue--universities are the only places that can conduct PHARMA research. However, it's entirely possible that non-pharma research, the type of research that the author complains is stifled because it does not "conform to the expectations of the corporation," could be performed anywhere.

Why? The evidence clearly states, quoting exactly from the question, "only larger universities will be able to conduct the research". Why is the location of the research out of question?

In fact, "lucrative research" and "availability of researchers in large institutions" are evidences used to arrive at an intermediate conclusion "only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities", which in turn is used as an evidence for the main conclusion.

This is a typical LSATish question. To say that the evidence, "lucrative research" and "experience of scientists", supports the main conclusion that research will be conducted at the cost of human welfare would be to skip the intermediate conclusion. Isn't it? The author acknowledges that ONLY larger universities are supporting the research by using a very strong word "ONLY."



Thoughts? I am still not 100% clear.

voodoo_child wrote:
Why? The evidence clearly states, quoting exactly from the question, "only larger universities will be able to conduct the research". Why is the location of the research out of question?

Thoughts? I am still not 100% clear.

Let me turn the question back at you: If Big Pharma agreed to conduct the same research, with the same people, studying the same subjects, but they moved that research from large universities to small ones or to research hospitals--would the critics in the question stem be satisfied that the research was not "at the expense of human welfare?"

They would be satisfied that the research is not conducted at the expense of human welfare because the research would be undertaken not ONLY at large institutions but others too. They may feel bad that the company is still influencing the research through their funding. Here, the critics are unhappy with two things - large institutions and the type of the research. Why do I think so ? Evidence says " 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. "

both the issues are important. There is an "and" connector. Both the issues are independent.

The main conclusion is hinged on the an intermediate conclusion as an evidence.

HEre's the flow, as per me:

{#1: Intermediate conclusion (IC) : only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities,

+

#2 : Intermediate conclusion (IC): graduate students will learn that their future research must conform to the expectations of the corporation.
}
Main conclusion : Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare

Support for IC #1 = funding is usually awarded to scientists at large institutions who already have vast research experience.
Support for IC #2 = Only research proposals promising lucrative results are given serious consideration,

As we can see that there two parallel threads going on in the argument. Both the threads are equally important. Both can equally destroy the argument.


Thoughts?

voodoo_child wrote:They would be satisfied that the research is not conducted at the expense of human welfare because the research would be undertaken not ONLY at large institutions but others too. They may feel bad that the company is still influencing the research through their funding. Here, the critics are unhappy with two things - large institutions and the type of the research. Why do I think so ? Evidence says " 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. "

both the issues are important. There is an "and" connector. Both the issues are independent.

The main conclusion is hinged on the an intermediate conclusion as an evidence.

HEre's the flow, as per me:

{#1: Intermediate conclusion (IC) : only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities,

+

#2 : Intermediate conclusion (IC): graduate students will learn that their future research must conform to the expectations of the corporation.
}
Main conclusion : Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare

Support for IC #1 = funding is usually awarded to scientists at large institutions who already have vast research experience.
Support for IC #2 = Only research proposals promising lucrative results are given serious consideration,

As we can see that there two parallel threads going on in the argument. Both the threads are equally important. Both can equally destroy the argument.


Thoughts?

Okay, I see the confusion!

You're looking at the two problems as parallel--but they're not. Your support for IC #2 is in fact also support for IC #1! In other words, according to the prompt, the reason that funding only goes to large institutions is the focus on success and profit.

I do stand corrected about the location of the research facilities; I lost track of the original text in the string of responses, and you're definitely right that the author wants research to be spread. But according to the author, the cause for the focus on large universities is, ultimately, the focus on lucrative pharma research plans. And so the drug company rep saying "We only do research at big universities because they're the only places properly equipped to make us money!" doesn't actually address the underlying criticism in the prompt.

Simple strategy ... in rebuttal questions ..attack the conclusion NOT the premise !!
C does the same !!

KapTeacherEli wrote:Okay, I see the confusion!

You're looking at the two problems as parallel--but they're not. Your support for IC #2 is in fact also support for IC #1! In other words, according to the prompt, the reason that funding only goes to large institutions is the focus on success and profit.

I do stand corrected about the location of the research facilities; I lost track of the original text in the string of responses, and you're definitely right that the author wants research to be spread. But according to the author, the cause for the focus on large universities is, ultimately, the focus on lucrative pharma research plans. And so the drug company rep saying "We only do research at big universities because they're the only places properly equipped to make us money!" doesn't actually address the underlying criticism in the prompt.

You are correct. I didn't notice that. Also, I re-read the passage again. E) , in this case, is a strengthener. Here's why:

Evidence : Funding is usuallyawarded to scientists at large institutions who already have vast research experience.
Intermediate conclusion - only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities,

HEnce, E) actually supports critic's argument because the IC uses a specific word "only" to say that the company influences "only" large institution. "most" or "usually" funded institutions do not hold good for a good reason.

Can you please let me know whether my line of reasoning is correct?

Thanks

voodoo_child wrote:

KapTeacherEli wrote:Okay, I see the confusion!

You're looking at the two problems as parallel--but they're not. Your support for IC #2 is in fact also support for IC #1! In other words, according to the prompt, the reason that funding only goes to large institutions is the focus on success and profit.

I do stand corrected about the location of the research facilities; I lost track of the original text in the string of responses, and you're definitely right that the author wants research to be spread. But according to the author, the cause for the focus on large universities is, ultimately, the focus on lucrative pharma research plans. And so the drug company rep saying "We only do research at big universities because they're the only places properly equipped to make us money!" doesn't actually address the underlying criticism in the prompt.

You are correct. I didn't notice that. Also, I re-read the passage again. E) , in this case, is a strengthener. Here's why:

Evidence : Funding is usuallyawarded to scientists at large institutions who already have vast research experience.
Intermediate conclusion - only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities,

HEnce, E) actually supports critic's argument because the IC uses a specific word "only" to say that the company influences "only" large institution. "most" or "usually" funded institutions do not hold good for a good reason.

Can you please let me know whether my line of reasoning is correct?

Thanks

That's correct--(E) represents the pharmaceutical companies admitting that because of the research that they prefer, they are only funding research in locations convenient to them.