With the emergence of biotechnology companies, it was feared that they

Question

With the emergence of biotechnology companies, it was feared that they would impose silence about proprietary results on their in-house researchers and their academic consultants. This constraint, in turn, would slow the development of biological science and engineering.

Which of the following, if true, would tend to weaken most seriously the prediction of scientific secrecy described above?

A. Biotechnological research funded by industry has reached some conclusions that are of major scientific importance.

B. When the results of scientific research are kept secret, independent researchers are unable to build on those results.

C. Since the research priorities of biotechnology companies are not the same as those of academic institutions, the financial support of research by such companies distorts the research agenda.

D. To enhance the companies' standing in the scientific community, the biotechnology companies encourage employees to publish their results, especially results that are important.

E. Biotechnology companies devote some of their research resources to problems that are of fundamental scientific importance and that are not expected to produce immediate practical applications.

ydmuley · Accepted Answer

As it is a CR question, lets read the Question stem first. The question is asking to most seriously weaken the prediction of scientific secrecy - which means this is WEAKEN THE ARGUMENT question

Premise:
 
 With emergence of Biotechnology companies, it was feared that it the companies would impose silence about the proprietary results on their in-house research and their academic consultants
 
 Conclusion :
 This limitation would slow the development of the biological science and engineering.
 
 As this is a weaken question, we need to look for options which displays that Biotechnology companies are not going to maintain the silence on the proprietary results. Let's go through all the options

A) Biotechnological research funded by industry has reached some conclusions that are of major scientific importance.
  - This is good, but that does not answer the question, will companies publish the results?
 
B) When the results of scientific research are kept secret, independent researchers are unable to build on those results.
  - This is would rather support the conclusion and not weaken
 
C) Since the research priorities of biotechnology companies are not the same as those of academic institutions, the financial support of research by such companies distorts the research agenda.
  - This is totally IRRELEVANT as it is still not referring to whether the results will be publicly available
 
D) To enhance the companies' standing in the scientific community, the biotechnology companies encourage employees to publish their results, especially results that are important.
  - Ah! Here comes the option which talks about companies making their data public by encouraging employees to publish their results - This looks like a possible choice, lets read the last answer choice too.  D is the CORRECT ANSWER 
 
E) Biotechnology companies devote some of their research resources to problems that are of fundamental scientific importance and that are not expected to produce immediate practical applications.
  - This point talk about spending some resources on fundamental research which is not expected to produce immediate practical applications - However, with this again we are not having clear idea whether the results of research will be publicly available or not, hence option can also be ruled out.
 
So,  D  is the  CORRECT  answer.

nhattruong1302 · Answer

choice D

Type weaken
Conclusion: The silence of Bio Companies => slow the developement of science
Assumption: keeping secret is vital to the develope of companies

Break the assumption: Bio companies have good reasons to public their finding. Hence choice D is correct

Zatarra · Answer

With Emergence of Biotechnology Companies, it was feared that they would impose silence about proprietary results on their in-house researchers and their academic consultants. This Constraint, in turn, would slow the development of biological science and engineering.

Which of the following, if true, would tend to weaken most seriously the prediction of scientific secrecy described above?

A) Biotechnological research funded by industry has reached some conclusions that are of major scientific importance.

B) When the results of scientific research are kept secret, independent researchers are unable to build on those results.

C) Since the research priorities of biotechnology companies are not the same as those of academic institutions, the financial support of research by such companies distorts the research agenda.

D) To enhance the companies' standing in the scientific community, the biotechnology companies encourage employees to publish their results, especially results that are important.

E) Biotechnology companies devote some of their research resources to problems that are of fundamental scientific importance and that are not expected to produce immediate practical applications.

What is meant by "the prediction of scientific secrecy described above:"
Doesnt it mean the conclusion "imposing silence about proprietary results on their in-house researchers and their academic consultants would slow the development of biological science and engineering. " ?

mSKR · Answer

Hi  VeritasKarishma   AndrewN   VeritasKarishma

Can not E weaken the argument? 
If results of problems that are of fundamental scientific importance but don't have immediate practical applications are not published then it should not impact much on the slowing down the development of biological science and engineering. In other words, there results may not of much use.

I am clear with D
D. To enhance the companies' standing in the scientific community, the biotechnology companies encourage employees to publish their results, especially results that are important.

So companies are publishing results that are important . For unimportant results, it should not impact much on the development of biological science and engineering. hence it weakens.

Please share your thought process on E.

Were you not confused even a bit for E? What thought prevented you in getting entangled in D option. Please suggest  AndrewN   VeritasKarishma

KarishmaB · Answer

Prediction - Scientific secrecy could lead to slow development in science and engg.

(E) Some resources will not produce immediate practical application.

The use of "some of their resources" suggests that this option is irrelevant. Secrecy in these cases may not hurt but in other cases it may. Also, not publishing results of some research may not have practical applications but it may impact development of science.

Hence, it doesn't weaken the prediction.

RohitSaluja · Answer

Hi  VeritasKarishma  I understood why E was wrong and correctly eliminated it, but reading your post made it seems that you eliminated it just by reading the initial part of the option I wanted to understand how did you arrive at the conclusion just by reading "some of their resources"

Appreciate the help thanks!!

KarishmaB · Answer

The argument says that biotech companies will keep results secret so that they can sell the applications. Hence, biotech science and engineering will suffer (because new developments will be kept secret, so others will not be able to build on them).

Option (E) says that some resources go into researching important theoretical matters. 
So it is saying that some money is not spent on researching results that have practical applications. 
It doesn't matter. If the rest of the money is spent on on practical applications and those are kept secret, it will hinder biotech science & engineering.

This is like the argument saying "A does B which he keeps secret and that is bad." 
and option (E) saying "A does some C too which, if kept secret, doesn't matter."

Option (E) doesn't weaken our argument.

pranayeekarmakar · Answer

I am in doubt with D because it states opposing facts from premises. the argument says the companies will silience the researcher and the option D says that the companies encourage their employess to publish the resreach data, aren't they two contradictory things? Can u please explain this?

mSKR · Answer

Hi  BrightOutlookJenn

Need your guidance on this question.

I learnt the methodology from you when you explained last time. here is the post

One confusion arose this time for this particular question:

I took evidence /premise as truth. It means they would impose silence about proprietary results
So now situation is : companies do silence

I want to find: How this silence  DOESNOT  slow the development of biological science and engineering.
( I took premises as true .Finding option to weaken the conclusion)

When I looked at D:
D is weakening at premise. It says that silence won’t happen. So I rejected D 
What am I doing wrong here?

But when I looked at E:
It indicates: Even silence happen, it may not affect the development of R & D.

Please suggest here why D is weakening premise and still correct answer. It didn't even reach to conclusion point about slowing down .

Thanks  BrightOutlookJenn

BrightOutlookJenn · Answer

Dear  mSKR

Thanks for the tag and the question about applying this method.

I want to draw a distinction here between  Evidence  (Facts, Data, Studies, Proof) and  Premises  (something that is used to build a conclusion - NOT ALWAYS evidence.)

Our question here actually has  very little  evidence: the only thing we know is true is that Biotechnology companies are emerging. There is nothing else we know for sure. 
The premise is clearly NOT evidence ... it is someone's worry about a thing that COULD happen. I would look at this as  Conclusion #1  of the argument.

So indeed, you do want to attack this idea, and find some reason that silence about results is NOT being imposed on researchers. D does a perfect job of this.

To takeaway - be careful to differentiate between  Evidence  (Facts, Data, Studies, Proof) and  Conclusions  (what someone THINKS is true). A Premise could be either of these; to be honest, I rarely find that term helpful in solving CR questions.

Does this help clear it up? Let us know.

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

BrightOutlookJenn 
 COULD happen 
^^ so far I know that 'prediction' is always OPINION not FACTS.

I rarely find that term helpful in solving CR questions.  
But, FACTS vs OPINION can help in solving RC (primary purpose question), right?

mSKR · Answer

Thanks for highlighting the methodology to the next level. one query on this step on my approach: With the emergence of biotechnology companies = premise ( keep as it is) Weakening point connecting with conclusion == , it was feared that they would impose silence about proprietary results on their in-house researchers and their academic consult ants. ==conclusion1 ( intermediate conclusion) This constraint, in turn, would slow the development of biological science and engineering . = overall conclusion So to attack /weaken the argument, anything that connects premise to conclusion can be weakened. In our question: the argument is based on ideas/thoughts , not on evidence and can be refuted . this refutation can occur for conclusion1 --> option D does that. Hence D is the correct answer. Please approve my approach:) Thanks BrightOutlookJenn

Dharam15 · Answer

Hi,

What is the level of this question?

I correctly chose D but took quite some time to eliminate C. The main question that came to mind is, the use of "would" in the question. I thought of it as a fact that the companies WILL be imposing a silence.

Bunuel · Answer

This is a 600-700 Level question. You can check difficulty tag along with other tags just above the first post.

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  avigutman  - i thought D and E were out right wrong because of the infintive  to+ suggest . I thought embryologists had an  intent  in mind

Trying to understand, when is the   -- an infintive of purpose vs. when is the   NOT an infinitive of purpose.

My thoughts below

jabhatta2 · Answer

(i).   I  danced  to lose weight   == in this case, the inifinitive in purple is an infinitive of purpose 
vs 
(ii)   I  requested John  to dance   ==== in this case, the infinitive in blue -- i think there is also intent
vs
(iii)   Maps   to escape   from prison were found  == in this case, the infinitive in red -- i am not sure if there is intent or no intent because, how can a "map" have an intention
vs 
iv)  This  plan  fails  to imply  THAT X killed Y  == in this case, the infinitive in green -- i am not sure if there is intent or no intent because, how can a "plan" have an intention

jabhatta2 · Answer

Is that whats going one here with option D and Option E?

Infinitives (to+verb)  can be  infinitives of purpose  if the subject of the sentence is logically something that can have a purpose (human beings, animals, plants - living)

But there can be other scenarios where non-living subjects   can be used with infinitives

I suppose in those cases, we have to assume the infinitive   DO NOT have a purpose

Thoughts

avigutman · Answer

jabhatta2 I don't see embryologists in this problem, so I'm wondering if you posted on the wrong thread. Nevertheless, I wonder if this might help: https://www.ef.com/ca/english-resources ... finitives/

sangal · Answer

Hi Egmat,

Could you please explain this question. I am confused as to why option D is the correct choice when its stating the opposite to a weakener

With the emergence of biotechnology companies, it was feared that they

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

With the emergence of biotechnology companies, it was feared that they

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