GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

It is currently 24 Feb 2020, 03:08

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Feb 2014
Posts: 77
Location: India
Schools: LBS MIF '19
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V40
GPA: 3.3
Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jan 2017, 03:21
7
25
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

57% (02:26) correct 43% (02:41) wrong based on 854 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 74
Location: India
GMAT 1: 610 Q47 V28
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jan 2017, 03:28
1
2
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
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 26 Jun 2016
Posts: 19
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Insead Sept'18
GMAT 1: 580 Q48 V23
GPA: 3.25
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2017, 06:48
1
1
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.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2838
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Feb 2017, 11:58
1
1
Aketa wrote:
hello experts?

could you please explain why B is wrong?


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.
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 675
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Feb 2017, 08:24
1
1
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.

Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2838
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Mar 2017, 10:10
gargisback wrote:
Subject: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were

sayantanc2k wrote:
Aketa wrote:
hello experts?

could you please explain why B is wrong?


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.


Why is A a right choice can u help???


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.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1191
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Mar 2018, 00:54
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
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 178
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Mar 2018, 09:34
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
Manager
Manager
User avatar
P
Status: The darker the night, the nearer the dawn!
Joined: 16 Jun 2018
Posts: 182
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Apr 2019, 20:52
rs47 wrote:
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

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!
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 09 Feb 2019
Posts: 19
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Aug 2019, 12:51
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!
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 178
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jan 2020, 15:37
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
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 922
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jan 2020, 06:34
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.
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here
My RC Guide: Here
Need an expert to grade your AWA? Go: Here
Want to know your Business School chances? Go: Here
Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10113
Location: Pune, India
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of sere  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jan 2020, 23:34
rs47 wrote:
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



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)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 8372
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jan 2020, 08:34
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the   [#permalink] 21 Jan 2020, 08:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne