BrightOutlookJenn wrote:
Dear
mSKRThanks 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
Quote:
it was feared that they would impose silence about proprietary results on their in-house researchers and their academic consultants
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.
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