Your Logic: "If companies get technology benefits from military research, why does it matter if they lose some scientists?"
The Problem: You're assuming that
indirect benefit (technology spillover) automatically
replaces direct benefit (having those scientists work for you). But these are
additive, not substitutes!
Here's the key mechanism:Without DARPA project:- Company has talented scientists working
directly for them = Direct Benefit
With DARPA project:- Company loses those scientists to DARPA = Loss of Direct Benefit
- Company
might get some technology transfer later = Uncertain Indirect Benefit
Net effect: Companies
lose something concrete (talent) in exchange for something
uncertain (potential technology). That's a weakener!
Simple analogy:If I take your
chef and promise you
might get some recipes back someday - have I
benefited you?
No! You lost your chef!
Option A shows companies LOSE something valuable (direct access to talent) - this
weakens the claim that "companies will benefit."
Answer: D - This is the EXCEPT because it merely states DARPA runs many projects. It tells us nothing about whether
this specific project will benefit companies or not. It's just background noise - neither strengthens nor weakens.
282552
Why OPtion A is a weakener. The conclusion says that Project will benefit Military and Companies. If the companies are getting benefited by money spent by military then why do they care.
Can anybody shed some light on my rationale ?