Government restrictions have severely limited the amount of stem cell

A) At least some foreign companies that conduct stem cell research work under fewer
restrictions than some American companies do.

*SOUNDS GOOD -HOLD

b) Because American scientists are under long-term contracts to foreign companies, there will
be a significant influx of foreign professionals into the United States.

*What if the restriction is in US based company but the research is in other countries?the influx of scientist may go to other countries where the US based companies are located.

* Foreign professionals may or may not come, but the issue raised is for the american scientists only, we can se it in the passage as "......Because of these restrictions, many American scientists who
specialize in the field of stem cell research have signed long-term contracts...."

c) In all parts of the world, stem cell research is dependent on the financial backing of local
government.

*America is not a part of the world?

*Financial backing is not mentioned anywhere, "restrictions"are mentioned that can be for any type, financial or moral or anything else... may be the research is been funded/proposed/encouraged by the Anthropological or pharmaceutical association of a country !!!
Restrictions was there which may be because of the anticipation illegal business involved for a particular time horizon!!

d) In the near future, American companies will no longer be at the forefront of stem cell
research.

*Near future will be bright anyways once the restrictions will be over.

e) If restrictions on stem cell research are lifted, many of the American scientists will break
their contracts to return to American companies.

Sounds a little extreme, but if possible for the scientists they will surely would not mind breaking their agreement because they left US companies ONLY when there were restrictions.

(E) wins.

The only thing wrong with this question is the given OA. Otherwise the question is very clear cut.

You need to find the conclusion. Look at the first two sentences of the argument:

Government restrictions have severely limited the amount of stem cell research American
companies can conduct. Because of these restrictions, many American scientists who
specialize in the field of stem cell research have signed long-term contracts to work for
foreign companies.

American companies have severe restrictions. Because of these restrictions, American scientists are signing contracts with foreign companies. We can conclude that some foreign companies do not have such severe limitations otherwise it doesn't make sense that american scientists are signing contracts with foreign companies because of these restrictions. Note that right now, congress has only proposed lifting all restrictions. The restrictions haven't been lifted yet and we don't know whether they will be lifted. It's just a proposal. Hence we cannot say that there are no restrictions in America. Still there are severe restrictions as mentioned in the
first sentence.

Answer is definitely (A).

(C) - Financial backing is not even mentioned in the argument. 'Severe restrictions' could be any kind of restrictions - laws not allowing certain experiments etc. Also, where does the argument tell us that it is dependent on financial backing of local govt in ALL parts of the world?

(D) - We cannot conclude what will happen in the future. Since congress has proposed lifting all restrictions, if these restrictions do get lifted, American companies could still be at the forefront. Perhaps enough number of scientists have not left for foreign companies yet and the situation can be salvaged. We don't know. Also, American companies may still be at the forefront while some foreign companies come to the forefront too. The point is, we certainly cannot conclude this from the limited info.

(E) - We cannot conclude that American scientists will break their contracts. Perhaps the restrictions are being lifted so that more scientists do not sign contracts with foreign companies.

Of all the options A only seems to be to the point and hence correct and other options are overstatements.

I am not sure, but it seems to me we can infer A without the last line of the argument- " Recently, Congress has proposed lifting all restrictions on stem cell research."

As per the last statement it means that now there are no restrictions on American companies and then how can we conclude that foreign companies have lower restrictions than no restrictions

Please help!!

Recently, Congress has proposed lifting all restrictions on stem cell research."
The argument says Congress has proposed not actually lifted the restrictions.
Hence A can be still be properly inferred.

Hope this helps!

I eliminated option A, as it said 'some' American companies while the governement restrictions are supposed to be imposed on all the American companies.
Please explain why this word (some) is not taken this way?

There isn't really any logical reason for the use of the word "some" in (A).

However, since "some" is within "all," (A) can be inferred.

Government restrictions have severely limited the amount of stem cell research American companies can conduct. Because of these restrictions, many American scientists who specialize in the field of stem cell research have signed long-term contracts to work for foreign companies. Recently, Congress has proposed lifting all restrictions on stem cell research.


(A) At least some foreign companies that conduct stem cell research work under fewer restrictions than some American companies do.


(B) Because American scientists are under long-term contracts to foreign companies, there will be a significant influx of foreign professionals into the United States.

Not necessarily; what if the U.S. scientists break those long term contracts and return to the States if Congress lifts restrictions? In that case, a significant influx of foreign professionals would not apply. In either case, we cannot answer with certainty.

(C) In all parts of the world, stem cell research is dependent on the financial backing of local government.

Not necessarily; stem cell research could be dependent on corporate funding. In either case, we cannot infer with certainty whether the funding is done through the government or corporations and it does not matter! The way stem cell research is funded is not the topic of discussion nor is it mentioned anywhere in the argument.

(D) In the near future, American companies will no longer be at the forefront of stem cell research.

We cannot tell whether this will be true or not. One might assume that because the U.S. keeps losing scientists, that will lead to the country staying behind on stem cell research, but it could be the case that it recruits foreign professionals or that U.S. scientists come back.

(E) If restrictions on stem cell research are lifted, many of the American scientists will break their contracts to return to American companies.

This might happen, but maybe the scientists like the life over there and do not want to return; maybe they have greater benefits, salary, etc., and do not want to return even if restrictions are lifted.

The passage discusses how government restrictions have limited stem cell research in American companies, leading many American scientists to sign long-term contracts with foreign companies. Then, it mentions that Congress has proposed lifting these restrictions.

Option (A) states, "At least some foreign companies that conduct stem cell research work under fewer restrictions than some American companies do." This conclusion can be inferred from the information provided in the passage. It's reasonable to assume that American scientists wouldn't sign long-term contracts with foreign companies if those foreign companies were subject to the same or stricter restrictions than American companies. Therefore, this conclusion is supported by the passage.