Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical

I still don't understand why C is correct answer. How does little medical research relate to human welfare?

Hii friend...
though m not an expert,would try to xplain..

C says that -if the company dint fund the research, there wont be any research..!if theres no research,there wont be any development of medicine out there and hence,wont benefit humans at all..so even though corporation is dominating the research,there is ateast some develpment in medicines and thus is nevertheless,benifitting the humans in some way..this directly counters the conclusion..




Please consider KUDOS,if my post helped

choose E
What is the right answer?

I have also opted for B but B is not the right option as even if students are motivated or not motivated to humane welfare, they may not continue the research in that direction due to multiple constraints like no support from their institute etc.

Wise choice is E

Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical companies exert too much influence upon medical research in universities.
Only research proposals promising lucrative results are given serious consideration, and funding is usually awarded to scientists at large institutions who already have vast research experience.
As a result, only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities, and graduate students will learn that their future research must conform to the expectations of the corporation.

Conclusion: Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare.

Which of the following reactions of a pharmaceutical company representative would provide the strongest rebuttal to the comments above?

B Vs E.
B:If it were not for the funds which pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.
>> Now this says that pharma folks r not damaging the situation. Infact they r supporting it.
If they r not there then very little research could be conducted.
Great!! they would certainly get my sympathy.

E:Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
>> This could be another reason behind the funding apart from what is mentioned in the premise: funding is usually awarded to scientists at large institutions who already have vast research experience.
This doesn't give a reason to rebut the claim.

"Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of graduate students.".................. Is this not a human welfare helping students ??

please can anyone explain why B is not correct.Why it is not contributing to human welfare?

[quote="netcaesar"]Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical companies exert too much influence upon medical research in universities. Only research proposals promising lucrative results are given serious consideration, and funding is usually awarded to scientists at large institutions who already have vast research experience. As a result, only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities, and graduate students will learn that their future research must conform to the expectations of the corporation. Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare.

The reasoning of the argument above depends upon which of the following assumptions?

A. As universities become primarily research institutions, teaching will be neglected..............we have no concern regarding teaching. OFS

B. Graduate students are not motivated by humane interests..............SOUNDS good since we're informed that students go for expectations of the Corp but this is too strong...so..keep it aside.

C. Smaller universities would be better suited to serve as product development laboratories for pharmaceutical companies.............this seems to support conclusion but need not be assumed.

D. Medical research should be funded by government-regulated foundations...............OFS just because pharma companies are investing for profits mean that govt should fund every medical research

E. The interests of pharmaceutical companies and human welfare are usually incompatible in research.............this seems to be the correct link to be an assumption.

The correct answer for me is E.

Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical companies exert too much influence upon medical research in universities. Only research proposals promising lucrative results are given serious consideration, and funding is usually awarded to scientists at large institutions who already have vast research experience. As a result, only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities, and graduate students will learn that their future research must conform to the expectations of the corporation. Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare.

Which of the following reactions of a pharmaceutical company representative would provide the strongest rebuttal to the comments above?.................Weaken

A, Many of the research projects funded by pharmaceutical companies do not end up being lucrative..............whether deals are not profitable does not explain why research will be continued. Completely out of scope

D, The committee members fail to discuss other methods of funding research projects..............Out of scope

E, Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies..........it is because they are getting the funding and this supports if not weaken the conclusion.


B, Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of graduate students..............I believe this contradicts the conclusion.

C, If it were not for the funds which pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.

Out of B and C, I felt C is a bit too extreme and hence opted for B thinking that fellowships are part of human welfare and thus option B contradicts the conclusion but I was wrong.

I kept wondering why B is wrong and then I found this answer and thought to share it.

E is the correct answer

A. outside the scope
B. outside the scope
C. conclusion is in regards to large universities, thus discussion of small universities is irrelevant
D. outside the scope
E. Correct; this statement establishes the link between human welfare and pharm co.

Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of graduate students.

Is the above one not an activity of human welfare? The funding goes not only to research but also to human welfare activities. Means the pharmaceutical funding is happening not only for profits but for welfare as well.


Why this is not a contender? Please help

IMO E seems to be the best solution, as the conclusion states that research will take place at the expense of human welfare, none of the other options touch on welfare

Does anyone know the OA?

The answer in my opinion is E
Because, as per the argument, the students who work towards meeting the expectations of the funding corporation will work against human welfare. This hold good only if the corporations goals are against human welfare. Upon negating the assumption, i.e., if the corporations gaols are towards human welfare then the students would also work towards human welfare. This leads to nullify/break the conclusion of the argument.

Dear ravikrishna1979,

I'm happy to respond.

This is a subtlety of language. The conclusion says: "Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare." In this context, "human welfare" means the really BIG picture---which diseases get cured and which don't, which socioeconomic groups get access to which treatments, etc. The author is suggesting that the practice described in the prompt argument would result in a net loss for the human race. In other words, if we could play out one scenario in which the pharmaceutical companies were doing as described, and another ideal scenario in which research money would be distributed by some perfect system of justice, then the author is suggesting that in the second scenario, the total number of people on earth who die from diseases, say, 50 or 100 years from now, will be considerably less than it would be in the first scenario. This is the kind of scope indicated by "human welfare."

Yes, it's true that graduate students are human beings too, but a grant that helps a team of grad students at a particular university--say a team of 100 or 200 grad students, a very large time--would still be just a pathetically small drop in the bucket compared to any of the universal scenarios outlined in the previous paragraph. Anything that helps only a 100 or only 1000 people is not healing "human welfare"--that term, but it's nature, connotes something on a much grander scale, something on a global scale.

Jonas Salk created the polio vaccine, which lead to the widespread elimination of the disease in many parts of the world. We could say that Salk benefitted human welfare.

Gandhi liberated one country (about 20% of the human population!) from colonialism, and in doing so, he set an example that has had a profound effect on a number of other movements, including Dr. King and the US Civil Rights movement. We could say that Gandhi benefitted human welfare.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations works to reduce conflict and promote peace throughout the world. The Secretary-General of the United Nations often benefits human welfare.

By contrast, I have 5000+ kudos on GMAT Club, so I have benefited several individual students, but by no stretch of the imagination could we possibly claim that this is evidence that I have benefited "human welfare"!!

Does this distinction make sense?
Mike

For the posted argument, I feel E is more accurate.

abhimahna,

Since you added the OA, can you explain C over E.


Note: The discussion on the thread is different from the question posted on the thread.

Yes, answer must be E. I am not sure how I marked C, but I have correct the answer now.

May be I got confused because of this:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/through-thei ... l#p1106878

Someone has merged two different questions wrongly, the main reason of confusion.

SO is it E,the correct option for the original question under this thread?
Not C as mentioned in the different question getting mentioned by voodoochild

ps the answer in the spoiler is still (C)