GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 17 Jan 2019, 19:35

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

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
• The winning strategy for a high GRE score

January 17, 2019

January 17, 2019

08:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Learn the winning strategy for a high GRE score — what do people who reach a high score do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we've collected from over 50,000 students who used examPAL.
• Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

January 19, 2019

January 19, 2019

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.

Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4486
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Sep 2013, 13:39
soumyaranjandash wrote:
Why option A is not viable here!!

Here's the question again:
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?
(A) Many of the research projects funded by pharmaceutical companies do not end up being lucrative.
(B) Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of graduate students.
(C) If it were not for the funds which pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.
(D) The committee members fail to discuss other methods of funding research projects.
(E) Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

The argument says, essentially, that the pharmaceutical company are doing something wrong, something harmful for humans in general, by these investments. If they are also bad investments, as (A) suggests, that only makes them even worse! The pharmaceutical company representative is not going use as a defense something that make the company's actions look even worse!

In other words, if someone makes an argument that, by doing X, I am actually harming others in a criminal way, then if my defense is: "But I am not doing X particularly well!" --- that's hardly a defense that would hold up in court!!

That's the problem with (A). Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Intern
Joined: 04 Mar 2014
Posts: 13
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Jul 2014, 22:13
I would go for C. The question stem blames pharma companies for the way they fund projects. however, if it weren't for them there would be very little funding anyways. Thus, though faulty, it is still better than nothing.
_________________

Intern
Joined: 23 May 2014
Posts: 11
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Jul 2014, 23:51
the author attacks pharmaceutical companies, claiming that they are damaging human welfare because only large, lucrative companies are funded

the best approach (GMAT-wise) to weaken this argument is to prove that greedy pharmacists actually improve human welfare
either that large universities perform better than non-lucrative projects,
or that graduate students conforming is a positive influence on human welfare.

tuanquang269 wrote:
[textarea][align=center]
A, Many of the research projects funded by pharmaceutical companies do not end up being lucrative.
doesn't disprove the fact that funding still happened

B, Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of graduate students.
although graduate students benefit, it's still a huge step away from human welfare, which is the argument's main attack

C, If it were not for the funds which pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.
says that pharmaceutical companies existence actually encourages more research
we go out of a limb here to assume more research = more human welfare, since the other answer choices do very little to support human welfare.

D, The committee members fail to discuss other methods of funding research projects.
This answer choice is too short to be a proper counter-argument, it didn't disprove the original argument of human welfare being damaged.

E, Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
unlike C, this fails to mention the consequence of no funding,
so we can't assume anything about human welfare from this answer alone, only that pharmaceutical companies will only target larger universities, which simply repeats and support the argument's flow of logic about only large universities being funded.

Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 168
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Jul 2014, 23:58
narmfarmer wrote:
the author attacks pharmaceutical companies, claiming that they are damaging human welfare because only large, lucrative companies are funded

the best approach (GMAT-wise) to weaken this argument is to prove that greedy pharmacists actually improve human welfare
either that large universities perform better than non-lucrative projects,
or that graduate students conforming is a positive influence on human welfare.

tuanquang269 wrote:
[textarea][align=center]
A, Many of the research projects funded by pharmaceutical companies do not end up being lucrative.
doesn't disprove the fact that funding still happened

B, Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of graduate students.
although graduate students benefit, it's still a huge step away from human welfare, which is the argument's main attack

C, If it were not for the funds which pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.
says that pharmaceutical companies existence actually encourages more research
we go out of a limb here to assume more research = more human welfare, since the other answer choices do very little to support human welfare.

D, The committee members fail to discuss other methods of funding research projects.
This answer choice is too short to be a proper counter-argument, it didn't disprove the original argument of human welfare being damaged.

E, Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
unlike C, this fails to mention the consequence of no funding,
so we can't assume anything about human welfare from this answer alone, only that pharmaceutical companies will only target larger universities, which simply repeats and support the argument's flow of logic about only large universities being funded.

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

.........................................................................
+1 Kudos please, if you like my post

Manager
Status: PLAY HARD OR GO HOME
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Posts: 147
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Mannheim
GMAT 1: 560 Q46 V22
GPA: 3.1
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Jul 2014, 01:31
narmfarmer wrote:
the author attacks pharmaceutical companies, claiming that they are damaging human welfare because only large, lucrative companies are funded

the best approach (GMAT-wise) to weaken this argument is to prove that greedy pharmacists actually improve human welfare
either that large universities perform better than non-lucrative projects,
or that graduate students conforming is a positive influence on human welfare.

tuanquang269 wrote:
[textarea][align=center]
A, Many of the research projects funded by pharmaceutical companies do not end up being lucrative.
doesn't disprove the fact that funding still happened

B, Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of graduate students.
although graduate students benefit, it's still a huge step away from human welfare, which is the argument's main attack

C, If it were not for the funds which pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.
says that pharmaceutical companies existence actually encourages more research
we go out of a limb here to assume more research = more human welfare, since the other answer choices do very little to support human welfare.

D, The committee members fail to discuss other methods of funding research projects.
This answer choice is too short to be a proper counter-argument, it didn't disprove the original argument of human welfare being damaged.

E, Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
unlike C, this fails to mention the consequence of no funding,
so we can't assume anything about human welfare from this answer alone, only that pharmaceutical companies will only target larger universities, which simply repeats and support the argument's flow of logic about only large universities being funded.

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
_________________

ITS NOT OVER , UNTIL I WIN ! I CAN, AND I WILL .PERIOD.

Intern
Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Posts: 34
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Oct 2014, 14:21
choose E
Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 660 Q51 V28
GMAT 3: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.55
WE: Engineering (Entertainment and Sports)
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

01 Nov 2014, 08:14
ykaiim wrote:
I will go with B.

Whats the OA?

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
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 444
Concentration: Technology, Other
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Jan 2015, 05:18
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.
Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2014
Posts: 83
Location: India
GPA: 3
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Jan 2015, 10:36
"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 ??

voodoochild wrote:
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?

Many of the research projects funded by pharmaceutical companies do not end up being lucrative.

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

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

The committee members fail to discuss other methods of funding research projects.

Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

OA - C

Can you please explain why E) is incorrect? If ONLY large universities are equipped to do the research, pharma companies are not wrong in funding ONLY large univ. Correct?

The conclusion is : Research will continue to be conducted at the cost of human welfare. The author provides a bunch of evidences : only large universities will be able to conduct the research; students' research will conform to the expectations of the companies.

However, if only large univ are the ones that CAN conduct the research, isn't the argument against companies weakened? Another point could be made that the author assumes that the expectations of the companies don't comply with human welfare. However, both the statements will equally kill the argument.

Thoughts?

_________________

"Arise, Awake and Stop not till the goal is reached"

Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 149
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 May 2015, 05:22
tuanquang269 wrote:
This is my new project: Renew Old Thread => Back to basic => Just try It and give your reasoning
The topic will be sticky for 2 days from starting

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?

A, Many of the research projects funded by pharmaceutical companies do not end up being lucrative.
B, Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of graduate students.
C, If it were not for the funds which pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.
D, The committee members fail to discuss other methods of funding research projects.
E, Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

please can anyone explain why B is not correct.Why it is not contributing to human welfare?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1114
Location: India
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

03 Jan 2016, 09:48
[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.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1114
Location: India
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

03 Jan 2016, 10:02
1
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.

GMATGuruNY wrote:
bhopalkararpit wrote:
Hello Mitch,
Ans choice B is also doing the welfare required...whereas Ans choice C is also not very clear .. Can u please elaborate what is the error is ans choice B ?

It is stated as a PREMISE -- as a FACT NOT IN DISPUTE -- that funding is usually awarded to SCIENTISTS WHO ALREADY HAVE VAST RESEARCH EXPERIENCE.
Answer choice B -- which states that much of the funding goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of grad students -- tries to weaken this premise.
A premise is a FACT; it cannot be disputed.
Any answer choice that tries to weaken a premise can be eliminated.
Eliminate B.
Current Student
Status: DONE!
Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 374
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Sep 2016, 09:42

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.
Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2016
Posts: 50
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Sep 2016, 06:34
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.

Intern
Joined: 01 Sep 2016
Posts: 12
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Sep 2016, 21:45
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?
Manager
Joined: 03 Apr 2016
Posts: 93
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19, IIMB EPGP"20
GMAT 1: 580 Q43 V27
GMAT 2: 650 Q32 V48
GRE 1: Q160 V151
GPA: 3.99
WE: Design (Consulting)
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Sep 2016, 22:26
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.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4486
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Sep 2016, 17:39
ravikrishna1979 wrote:
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.

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
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 490
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Apr 2017, 21:22
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.
Board of Directors
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3627
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Apr 2017, 22:05
warriorguy wrote:
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.
_________________

My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.
New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!
Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free
Check our new About Us Page here.

Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2016
Posts: 217
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 620 Q50 V24
GRE 1: Q167 V147
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical  [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Apr 2017, 06:01
abhimahna wrote:
warriorguy wrote:
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)
Re: Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical &nbs [#permalink] 25 Apr 2017, 06:01

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 42 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by