Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical

Official Explanation::

This is a Weaken question because it asks for a rebuttal. The author is arguing that pharmaceutical companies have too much influence on university medical research, ultimately concluding that research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare. As evidence, the author reveals a few downsides: Most of the time, only projects that promise profitable results are considered, and only scientists with lots of experience at large universities get funding. However, the author completely overlooks any benefit to the funding, assuming that any benefits are minimal or outweighed by the negatives. As a rebuttal, the pharmaceutical companies can show why their funding is so important or beneficial in the first place.

(C) is correct, as it provides a substantial benefit. Without these companies' funding, very little research would get done. In that case, it's better to have selective funding than nothing.

(A) doesn't weaken the argument because the companies are concerned with a project's potential profitability, so some actual failures are okay.

(B) doesn't weaken the argument because the author is concerned with which projectsare being funded, not which students.

(D) is irrelevant. The lack of a better solution doesn't change the author's point that the current system is broken.

(E) misses the author's point: only research of the type large universities can carry on is getting funded, and other types of research should be funded but aren't.

TAKEAWAY: When an author wants to dismiss something and only talks about the disadvantages, consider any overlooked benefits that would compensate for the negatives.