The proper way to plan a scientific project is first to decide its goa

The Argument clearly explains the author's definition of planning a project. A goal must be decided first, and then there must be planning the best possible way to accomplish this goal.
The Author gives the example of the Space Station, which had an original objective but had undergone a change at a certain point. The Author then says that this new objective can be achieved through other ways as well. But he/she does not throw light on whether this method (space station) to achieve the objective (limited gravity experimentation) is the best way to go about it or not. In fact there is no mention of "better" ways to do it. He/She merely acknowledges that there are possible alternatives, and then concludes that building the space station is, in fact, not required.

Choice E is the only option that accurately summarizes what the author has written in the argument.

From Powerscore:

The argument sets out a principle: that the proper way to plan a scientific project is to first decide its goal, then find the best way of meeting that goal. Then it argues that the US space station project violates this principle. The goal of such a project, after the end of the Cold War, was to conduct limited-gravity experiments. However, such experiments can be done in other (though not necessarily better) ways. The flaw here is that from the evidence provided, it is unclear whether the above principle is violated. Namely, the mere fact that such experiments can be done in other ways does not violate the principle. It is only when these other ways are superior that the principle is violated.

Answer choice (A) The argument does not make an ad hominem attack. It does not base its attack upon the source of the opposite position.

Answer choice (B) The argument here is not circular. The argument sets out a clear principle and tries unsuccessfully to meet it.

Answer choice (C) The argument does not blame any party for not foreseeing the end of the Cold War.

Answer choice (D) The argument does not contradict itself. The statements it advances are consistent, but the evidence it cites simply does not rise to the level of proving the proposition set forth.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The argument points to evidence of the existence of a shortcoming—that the experiments can be done in other ways. However, this is not a fatal flaw, and thus does not violate the principle, because it has not been shown those other ways are superior to conducting the experiments using the space station project.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.