Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere

Question

Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of serendipity, the chance discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought. Now, however, scientific research tends to be so costly that investigators are heavily dependent on large grants to fund their research. Because such grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research, investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research. Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances, serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research.

(B) In the past few scientific investigators attempted to make clear predictions of the outcome of their research.

(C) Dependence on large grants is preventing investigators from conducting the type of scientific research that those investigators would personally prefer.

(D) All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research receive at least some of the grants for which they apply.

(E) In general the most valuable scientific discoveries are the product of serendipity

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) Yes. The passage states “investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research.” The passage then concludes “serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery.” This assumes that serendipitous discoveries can occur only outside the area currently being studied. It is conceivable that a scientist could make a serendipitous discovery in an area of funded research while working on another area of funded research.

(B) No. This is irrelevant.
(C) No. This is irrelevant.
(D) No. This is irrelevant.
(E) No. This is irrelevant.

nitiny · Answer

PREMISE :-  Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of serendipity, the chance discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought. Now, however, scientific research tends to be so costly that investigators are heavily dependent on large grants to fund their research. Because such grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research, investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research.

Conclusion:-  Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances, serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery.

(A) Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research.

(B) In the past  few  scientific investigators attempted to make clear predictions of the outcome of their research.

(C) Dependence on large grants is preventing investigators from conducting the type of scientific research that those investigators would personally prefer.

out of scope

(D) All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research receive  at least some  of the grants for which they apply.

(E) In general the most valuable scientific discoveries are the product of serendipity
  too vague statement

Hientran48 · Answer

Premise 1: In the past, many discoveries came from serendipity (fortune, accident)
Premise 2: However, now, research is so costly -> depend (heavily) on grants
Premise 3: Such grants require clear outcome  (findings)  of research -> investigator ignore anything does not directly bear on funded research

Conclusion : serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific  discovery (findings )

Reasoning the argument: There is a gap between discovery (findings) and funded research --> It is possible that some  findings (discovery)  happen accidentally (not purposely sought) as the result of doing the research.

Negating A :  Not only  findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research -> it means some findings are not purposely sought (accidentally) can direct bear on that research -> conclusion collapses

Hence, A is the correct answer.

sayantanc2k · Answer

It seems that you have mistaken this question for an inference type question.

An assumption is a link between the premise and the conclusion.

I. Premise: such grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research
II. Intermediate conclusion (i.e. conclusion of above premise and premise for final conclusion below): investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research.
III. Final conclusion: serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery.

Option B does not link any of the premise-conclusion link ( i.e I to II or II to III). Hence it cannot be an assumption. It does not matter whether in past few researches, the investigators attempted to make clear predictions of the outcome of their research. Even if they didn't neither of the two links are affected.

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of serendipity, the chance discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought. Now, however, scientific research tends to be so costly that investigators are heavily dependent on large grants to fund their research. Because such grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research, investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research. Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances, serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research.

(B) In the past few scientific investigators attempted to make clear predictions of the outcome of their research.

(C) Dependence on large grants is preventing investigators from conducting the type of scientific research that those investigators would personally prefer.

(D) All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research receive at least some of the grants for which they apply.

(E) In general the most valuable scientific discoveries are the product of serendipity

The argument says that unline earlier days investors now only funds the reaserch which is beneficial to them and the scientist now has to provide assurity that the reaserch would conclude with positive result which would be beneficial to the investors as well.Option A correctly mentions the arguments assumption.
TO test that weather option A is the correct choice we ccan do a negation test that is if we negate the assumption the argument shoud not be valid anymore,
So if we say that investors purposefully do not seek anything ,This would break the argument as the entire argument is based on this idea. threfore option A is the most suitable answer.

sayantanc2k · Answer

Premise 1: Grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research
Premise 2: Investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research.

Conclusion: Serendipity (the occurrence of events by chance in a beneficial way) can no longer play a role in scientific discovery.

Option A: Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research. 
Negate option A: Findings that an investigator does NOT purposely seek can directly bear on that investigator's research.

The negation implies that even though the scientists do not intentionally seek certain things, they can still bear on that investigator's research (resulting in a discovery), implying that serendipity may play a role in scientific discovery (even though the scientists might not intend so). Thus negating option A breaks the argument and hence is a required assumption.

gmatexam439 · Answer

Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of serendipity, the chance discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought. Now, however, scientific research tends to be so costly that investigators are heavily dependent on large grants to fund their research. Because such grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research, investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research. Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances, serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research. -- Correct.

(B) In the past few scientific investigators attempted to make clear predictions of the outcome of their research. -- Conclusion of the argument is regarding serendipity.

(C) Dependence on large grants is preventing investigators from conducting the type of scientific research that those investigators would personally prefer. -- large funds not grants

(D) All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research receive at least some of the grants for which they apply. -- Whether they receive or not doesn't refute the argument that serendipity can play a role in discovery.

(E) In general the most valuable scientific discoveries are the product of serendipity -- Exaggerated choice

jabhatta2 · Answer

D is wrong because if you negate the answer choice, the argument can still hold

Argument : today's scientific discoveries are discovered not through luck but planning and focus...Hence luck is no longer essential in finding scientific discoveries

(D) All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research receive at least some of the grants for which they apply.

Negating D : Not all folks who apply for grant money, get some $

If D is accurate, negating D, destroy's the arguement

Now per negated D, if some one who applied for grant money did not get their grant money .... does it proove luck is no longer a factor in finding scientific discoveries ?

Per negated D, if some one who applied for grant money did not get their grant money (let's say one person is the sample size) -- can you proove definitely, luck is not longer important ..

You cant ...

Hence D cannot be correct

XyLan · Answer

Conclusion:  
 Under the prevailing circumstances, serendipity can NO longer play a role in scientific discovery.

Pre-Think:  
Both 
 Serendipity 
 AND  Investigators IGNORANCE about anything that does not directly bear on the funded research 
 goes Hand-in-hand.

Answer choice analysis between A and E:  
  (A)  Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research.  
 !A : Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks CANNOT directly bear on that investigator's research. 
 Meaning  - There are OTHER factors as well such as chances/Serendipity that CAN directly bear on that investigator's research. 
Negating A  shatters  the conclusion.

(E)  In general, the most valuable scientific discoveries are the product of serendipity.
 More than 50% - Let's say 70% of the scientific discoveries are the product of serendipity.

!E : less than 50% - 30% of the scientific discoveries are the product of serendipity.
!E STILL supports the argument.   JUST lesser THAN before.

!E does NOT break the conclusion.  
A is the   Champ  !

GmatDisciple · Answer

I'm trying to speed up my CR responses by using Scope to quickly eliminate choices, and then focus on the remaining ones with assumptions analysis.
Here's how I had approached this question:

Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of serendipity, the chance discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought. Now, however, scientific research tends to be so costly that investigators are heavily dependent on large grants to fund their research. Because such grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research, investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research. Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances, serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery.

Scope: Role of Serendipity (lucky findings) in recent research and impact of goal-oriented grant writing on the same.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research.
Within Scope - Retain

(B) In the past few scientific investigators attempted to make clear predictions of the outcome of their research.
Out of scope: We're interested in impact on recent research, not past - Eliminate

(C) Dependence on large grants is preventing investigators from conducting the type of scientific research that those investigators would personally prefer.
Out of scope: Not concerned with investigators' personal preferences. - Eliminate

(D) All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research receive at least some of the grants for which they apply.
Out of scope: How many receive grants is irrelevant - Eliminate

(E) In general the most valuable scientific discoveries are the product of serendipity
More or less, a reiteration of the first line of premise. - Eliminate

Thus, going just by scope alone we can eliminate most if not all of the statements!
Please do let me know if this approach makes sense in general. Looking forward to your inputs

And of course, kudos if you found it useful.

Thanks!

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hello Experts --  GMATNinja ,  gmat1393 ,  GMATNinjaTwo ,  nightblade354 ,  iamsiddharthkapoor   VeritasKarishma

When i negate D 
 
- Negated D) At-least one investigator did apply but was not offered a grant in order to research

I thought this destroyed the argument because

If At-least one investigator who did apply but did not get their grant in order to research --> then

this investigator who was refused a grant will no longer feel compelled to ignore anything as mentioned in the premise

Implication -- luck could still play a role for this investigator

Doesn't this implication that could still play a role for this specific investigator -- destroy the argument ?

please let me know your thoughts

nightblade354 · Answer

jabhatta@umail.iu.edu ,

(D) All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research receive at least some of the grants for which they apply.

Your negation of (D) is incorrect. You need to negate the quantity or the positiveness, but not both. (D) negated should be:  NOT  All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research receive at least some of the grants for which they apply.

OR: All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research  DO NOT  receive at least some of the grants for which they apply.

KarishmaB · Answer

Scientific research today depends on grants.
Grants require investigators to provide clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research 
So, investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research.

Conclusion: Serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery.

There is a gap in logic. We know that investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research. So we conclude that serendipity can no longer play a role (that investigator will ignore what he doesn't seek) 
But for that we are assuming that what he doesn't seek will not directly bear on the funded research.

Option (A) plugs this gap - Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research.

Now it makes sense.

Answer (A)

SonGoku · Answer

(A) Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research.

Since he ignores everything that is not useless for funding, serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery. If you negate option A the conclusion will fail.

unraveled · Answer

Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of serendipity, the chance discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought. Now, however, scientific research tends to be so costly that investigators are heavily dependent on large grants to fund their research. Because such grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research,  investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research . Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances, serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research.

Since he ignores everything that is not useless for funding, serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery. If you negate option A the conclusion will fail.

(B) In the past few scientific investigators attempted to  make clear predictions of the outcome of their research . - WRONG. Not affecting the conclusion.

(C) Dependence on large grants is  preventing investigators from conducting the type of scientific research  that those investigators would personally prefer. - WRONG. Does not affect conclusion in any manner. Preference and serendipity are far apart.

(D)  All scientific investigators  who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research  receive at least some of the grants  for which they apply. - WRONG. May be not all receive.

(E)  In general  the  most valuable scientific discoveries are  the product of serendipity - WRONG. Generalizing it is wrong. Also, 'most' is exaggeration. Finally, the crux of this choice is irrelevant.

Answer A.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards