With the emergence of biotechnology companies, it was feared that they

With Emergence of Biotechnology Companies, it was feared that they would impose silence about proprietary results on their in-house researchers and their academic consultants. This Constraint, in turn, would slow the development of biological science and engineering.

Which of the following, if true, would tend to weaken most seriously the prediction of scientific secrecy described above?

A) Biotechnological research funded by industry has reached some conclusions that are of major scientific importance.

B) When the results of scientific research are kept secret, independent researchers are unable to build on those results.

C) Since the research priorities of biotechnology companies are not the same as those of academic institutions, the financial support of research by such companies distorts the research agenda.

D) To enhance the companies' standing in the scientific community, the biotechnology companies encourage employees to publish their results, especially results that are important.

E) Biotechnology companies devote some of their research resources to problems that are of fundamental scientific importance and that are not expected to produce immediate practical applications.

What is meant by "the prediction of scientific secrecy described above:"
Doesnt it mean the conclusion "imposing silence about proprietary results on their in-house researchers and their academic consultants would slow the development of biological science and engineering. " ?

Hi VeritasKarishma AndrewN VeritasKarishma



Can not E weaken the argument?
If results of problems that are of fundamental scientific importance but don't have immediate practical applications are not published then it should not impact much on the slowing down the development of biological science and engineering. In other words, there results may not of much use.

I am clear with D
D. To enhance the companies' standing in the scientific community, the biotechnology companies encourage employees to publish their results, especially results that are important.

So companies are publishing results that are important . For unimportant results, it should not impact much on the development of biological science and engineering. hence it weakens.

Please share your thought process on E.

Were you not confused even a bit for E? What thought prevented you in getting entangled in D option. Please suggest AndrewN VeritasKarishma

Prediction - Scientific secrecy could lead to slow development in science and engg.

(E) Some resources will not produce immediate practical application.

The use of "some of their resources" suggests that this option is irrelevant. Secrecy in these cases may not hurt but in other cases it may. Also, not publishing results of some research may not have practical applications but it may impact development of science.

Hence, it doesn't weaken the prediction.

Hi VeritasKarishma I understood why E was wrong and correctly eliminated it, but reading your post made it seems that you eliminated it just by reading the initial part of the option I wanted to understand how did you arrive at the conclusion just by reading "some of their resources"

Appreciate the help thanks!!

The argument says that biotech companies will keep results secret so that they can sell the applications. Hence, biotech science and engineering will suffer (because new developments will be kept secret, so others will not be able to build on them).

Option (E) says that some resources go into researching important theoretical matters.
So it is saying that some money is not spent on researching results that have practical applications.
It doesn't matter. If the rest of the money is spent on on practical applications and those are kept secret, it will hinder biotech science & engineering.

This is like the argument saying "A does B which he keeps secret and that is bad."
and option (E) saying "A does some C too which, if kept secret, doesn't matter."

Option (E) doesn't weaken our argument.

I am in doubt with D because it states opposing facts from premises. the argument says the companies will silience the researcher and the option D says that the companies encourage their employess to publish the resreach data, aren't they two contradictory things? Can u please explain this?

Hi BrightOutlookJenn

Need your guidance on this question.

I learnt the methodology from you when you explained last time.here is the post

One confusion arose this time for this particular question:


I took evidence /premise as truth. It means they would impose silence about proprietary results
So now situation is : companies do silence




I want to find: How this silence DOESNOT slow the development of biological science and engineering.
( I took premises as true .Finding option to weaken the conclusion)



When I looked at D:
D is weakening at premise. It says that silence won’t happen. So I rejected D
What am I doing wrong here?



But when I looked at E:
It indicates: Even silence happen, it may not affect the development of R & D.

Please suggest here why D is weakening premise and still correct answer. It didn't even reach to conclusion point about slowing down .

Thanks BrightOutlookJenn

Dear mSKR

Thanks for the tag and the question about applying this method.

I want to draw a distinction here between Evidence (Facts, Data, Studies, Proof) and Premises (something that is used to build a conclusion - NOT ALWAYS evidence.)

Our question here actually has very little evidence: the only thing we know is true is that Biotechnology companies are emerging. There is nothing else we know for sure.
The premise is clearly NOT evidence ... it is someone's worry about a thing that COULD happen. I would look at this as Conclusion #1 of the argument.

So indeed, you do want to attack this idea, and find some reason that silence about results is NOT being imposed on researchers. D does a perfect job of this.

To takeaway - be careful to differentiate between Evidence (Facts, Data, Studies, Proof) and Conclusions (what someone THINKS is true). A Premise could be either of these; to be honest, I rarely find that term helpful in solving CR questions.

Does this help clear it up? Let us know.

BrightOutlookJenn
COULD happen
^^ so far I know that 'prediction' is always OPINION not FACTS.

I rarely find that term helpful in solving CR questions.
But, FACTS vs OPINION can help in solving RC (primary purpose question), right?

Thanks for highlighting the methodology to the next level.

one query on this step on my approach:

With the emergence of biotechnology companies= premise ( keep as it is)
Weakening point connecting with conclusion ==
, it was feared that they would impose silence about proprietary results on their in-house researchers and their academic consultants. ==conclusion1 ( intermediate conclusion)
This constraint, in turn, would slow the development of biological science and engineering. = overall conclusion

So to attack /weaken the argument, anything that connects premise to conclusion can be weakened.
In our question: the argument is based on ideas/thoughts , not on evidence and can be refuted .
this refutation can occur for conclusion1 --> option D does that.

Hence D is the correct answer.

Please approve my approach:)

Thanks BrightOutlookJenn

Hi,

What is the level of this question?

I correctly chose D but took quite some time to eliminate C. The main question that came to mind is, the use of "would" in the question. I thought of it as a fact that the companies WILL be imposing a silence.

This is a 600-700 Level question. You can check difficulty tag along with other tags just above the first post.

Hi avigutman - i thought D and E were out right wrong because of the infintive to+ suggest. I thought embryologists had an intent in mind

Trying to understand, when is the [to+verb] -- an infintive of purpose vs. when is the [to+verb] NOT an infinitive of purpose.

My thoughts below

(i). I danced to lose weight == in this case, the inifinitive in purple is an infinitive of purpose
vs
(ii) I requested John to dance ==== in this case, the infinitive in blue -- i think there is also intent
vs
(iii) Maps to escape from prison were found == in this case, the infinitive in red -- i am not sure if there is intent or no intent because, how can a "map" have an intention
vs
iv) This plan fails to imply THAT X killed Y == in this case, the infinitive in green -- i am not sure if there is intent or no intent because, how can a "plan" have an intention

Is that whats going one here with option D and Option E?

Infinitives (to+verb) can be infinitives of purpose if the subject of the sentence is logically something that can have a purpose (human beings, animals, plants - living)

But there can be other scenarios where non-living subjects [maps, evidence,studies, crime scenes, discoveries....] can be used with infinitives [to+verb]

I suppose in those cases, we have to assume the infinitive [to+verb] DO NOT have a purpose

Thoughts

jabhatta2 I don't see embryologists in this problem, so I'm wondering if you posted on the wrong thread.
Nevertheless, I wonder if this might help:
https://www.ef.com/ca/english-resources ... finitives/

Hi Egmat,

Could you please explain this question. I am confused as to why option D is the correct choice when its stating the opposite to a weakener