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

The proper way to plan a scientific project is first to decide its goal and then to plan the best way to accomplish that goal. The United States space station project does not conform to this ideal. When the Cold War ended, the project lost its original purpose, so another purpose was quickly grafted onto the project, that of conducting limited-gravity experiments, even though such experiments can be done in an alternative way. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the space station should not be built.

A difficult one..
Proper way to plan :- Decide a goal -> then work on the best way to get to that goal.
Plan of a Space station :- Initial reason was cold war -> space station planned -> the cold war, thus the purpose, has ended -> Another goal of experiments decided -> Other ways to do these experiments possible -> The plan should be shelved.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

Flaws could be -
1) The project could been already at the final stage, so shelving would not solve purpose, as it is used for some other purpose.
2) The alternative way may not be more efficient.

(A) attacks the proponents of a claim rather than arguing against the claim itself
No such thing happens in the para

(B) presupposes what it sets out to prove
Means a circular argument, but this is not a circular argument. The argument is very clear

(C) faults planners for not foreseeing a certain event, when in fact that event was not foreseeable
No one has been blamed in the argument

(D) contains statements that lead to a self-contradiction
The argument is very clear. There is a goal, and ways to accomplish that.

(E) concludes that a shortcoming is fatal, having produced evidence only of the existence of that shortcoming
This meets our 2nd flaw mentioned above. A shortcoming of the initial purpose being no more there and possible alternate ways is given but we do not know that these ways are more efficient, and what stage is the project on.

E
_________________

Thank you for posting the question.

I believe the answer should be 'D'.

Argument says that proper way to plan a scientific project is first to decide its goal and space station should not be built because it didn't have a purpose.

However, the argument contradicts its own reasoning by stating the project lost its original purpose. It means the project had a purpose when it was started.

Kindly explain, if I am wrong.

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.
_________________