|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3550
Followers: 55
Kudos [?]:
626
[0], given: 781
|
Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the [#permalink]
27 Sep 2003, 11:24
Question Stats:
50% (04:25) correct
50% (02:13) wrong based on 0 sessions
24. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 143
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I think it's B).
Though it slightly restates the already existing evidence (the chances discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought), I see no other reasons for serendipity to fall out of use in modern research practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1683
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
16
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received KUDOS
Negate the assumption and see whether the argument is destoyed.
I vote for A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3550
Followers: 55
Kudos [?]:
626
[0], given: 781
|
stolyar wrote: Negate the assumption and see whether the argument is destoyed. I vote for A.
Ok..so this is how i negate the argument
Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks cannot directly bear on that investigator's research.
Then the argument does not hold true. because it says that serendipity is an important factor influencing research.
Great !
Thanks
Praetorian
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1683
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
Negation for checking an assumption is a nice rule. By the way, it works for inferences as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3550
Followers: 55
Kudos [?]:
626
[0], given: 781
|
stolyar wrote: Negation for checking an assumption is a nice rule. By the way, it works for inferences as well.
hey stolyar
thanks for that..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 143
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Right, it perfectly works here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 21 Mar 2011
Posts: 16
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the [#permalink]
28 Dec 2011, 19:01
(A) Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research.
The negation of this is :
No findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research.
which seems to invalidate the conclusion
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the
[#permalink]
28 Dec 2011, 19:01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|