Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Performing outstanding medical research requires more than a [#permalink]
09 Jun 2004, 12:03
0% (00:00) correct
100% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Performing outstanding medical research requires more than a simple talent and more than a simple explanation. A drive to solve problems is clearly a part of it. Also critical is the ability to identify the right questions to ask. Thus, if we are to produce successful medical researchers, our universities must cultivate dedication and creativity rather than merely convey information.
If true, which of the following would be the strongest objection to the argument of the passage above?
A) researchers have a genuine curiosity about the world
B) scientific talent is only a small facet of what makes an oustanding researcher
C) the proper function of our universities is not to produce outstanding researchers, but to create well-rounded graduates
D) developing creativity in students is less important for the cultivation of research talent than is instilling a sense of dedication
E) teachers often cause harm when they attempt to do more than convey information
Last edited by Paul on 10 Jun 2004, 07:59, edited 1 time in total.
Somehow I also think that (E) should be the answer, (Though now-a-days I'm going thru a bad patch as far as CRs' are concerned)
Though it is not mentioned that what kind of harm the option is talking about, but still I think (E) scores over (C), because (C) has a problem with term "well rounded graduate", and passage states that our universities must cultivate dedication and creativity rather than merely convey information.
This means universities must make a person creative, dedicated to work and along with these they should also convey information, which sounds like making an individual all-rounder.
Can anyone clearly state what the assumption in the argument is and how is the answer attacking the assumption?
Author says that to produce excellent researchers you need:
1- A drive to solve problems = dedication
2- the ability to identify the right questions to ask = creativity
Conclusion: If we(universities) are to produce good researchers, we need to focus on dedication and creativity and go beyond merely pouring information to students.
But the goal of our university is NOT to produce good researchers but to produce well-rounded individuals. Hence, there is no point in focusing in dedication and creativity and this would be the strongest objection to the author's claim
E is next best answer.
However, saying that there is harmed caused when you go beyond merely giving information to students does not give a reason as to how the focusing on dedication and creativity would not produce good researchers. For instance, despite there being harm caused to researchers, there could still be a good culture of dedication and creativity which would make good researchers. The point is we do not know which kind of "harm" is caused by giving more information and C more directly attacks the claim. Maybe someone would have a better reason to refute E...