Ethicist: Although science is frequently said to be morally neutral, i

Question

Ethicist: Although science is frequently said to be morally neutral, it has a traditional value system of its own. For example, scientists sometimes foresee that a line of theoretical research they are pursuing will yield applications that could seriously harm people, animals, or the environment. Yet, according to science’s traditional value system, such consequences do not have to be considered in deciding whether to pursue that research. Ordinary morality, in contrast, requires that we take the foreseeable consequences of our actions into account whenever we are deciding what to do.

The ethicist’s statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) Scientists should not be held responsible for the consequences of their research.
(B) According to the dictates of ordinary morality, scientists doing research that ultimately turns out to yield harmful applications are acting immorally.
(C) Science is morally neutral because it assigns no value to the consequences of theoretical research.
(D) It is possible for scientists to both adhere to the traditional values of their field and violate a principle of ordinary morality.
(E) The uses and effects of scientifically acquired knowledge can never be adequately foreseen.

DinoPen · Answer

I was stuck between B and D. And, I ultimately chose B. 
Can someone explain why D is correct?

panopticon · Answer

This sentence "Ordinary morality, in contrast, requires that we take the foreseeable consequences of our actions into account whenever we are deciding what to do" describes ordinary morality as it relates to this question stem. According to this definition, scientists would have to not take into account the foreseeable consequences of their actions (research) in order to act immorally.

Option B states that scientists whose research yields harmful results will be acting in opposition to the concept of ordinary morality. But what if those scientists took into consideration the foreseeable consequences of their actions? Even if scientists' research creates harm, their intention might not have been as such. Thus, we cannot infer that simply conducting research that causes harm violates ordinary morality.

Option D states that scientists can violate ordinary morality and adhere to science's traditional value system. This is definitely true since science's traditional value system can possibly violate ordinary morality.

auradediligodo · Answer

Ethicist: Although science is frequently said to be morally neutral, it has a traditional value system of its own. For example, scientists sometimes foresee that a line of theoretical research they are pursuing will yield applications that could seriously harm people, animals, or the environment. Yet, according to science’s traditional value system, such consequences do not have to be considered in deciding whether to pursue that research. Ordinary morality, in contrast, requires that we take the foreseeable consequences of our actions into account whenever we are deciding what to do.

The ethicist’s statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

Inference question

Pre-thinking

We are given that scientists should not consider the consequences of their actions while people to whom ordinary morality is applied should.
 Hence if a scientist were to follow ordinary morality, she would go against the traditional value system of scientists.

POE:

(A) Scientists should not be held responsible for the consequences of their research.
 Whether a scientist should or should not be held responsible for her actions is out of scope here

(B) According to the dictates of ordinary morality, scientists doing research that ultimately turns out to yield harmful applications are acting immorally.
 immorality is not discussed in the argument. We only know that according to the principles of ordinary morality people should take into consideration the results of their actions

(C) Science is morally neutral because it assigns no value to the consequences of theoretical research.
 Why science is morally neutral is not given

(D)   It is possible for scientists to both adhere to the traditional values of their field and violate a principle of ordinary morality.
 In line with pre-thinking

(E) The uses and effects of scientifically acquired knowledge can never be adequately foreseen.
 out of scope

akela · Answer

ManhattanPrep:

We have an inference question. So let's review what we know:

-Science has a traditional value system (TVS) of its own.
-Scientists sometimes see that their research could do harm, but according to the TVS, they don't have to consider this when deciding whether to keep researching or not.
-Ordinary morality, however, requires that we consider consequences.

(A) is out of scope. There is nothing in the stimulus about responsibility.

(B) is incorrect because the stimulus doesn't actually tell us that doing research that does harm is immoral. It tells us that ordinary morality requires that we consider the consequences--that we at least take them into account. That's different than calling it outright immoral. Maybe we'd consider them and then decide they're not immoral, actually.

(C) is the opposite of what the stimulus tells us; science is not morally neutral.

(D) is correct.

(E) far exceeds the scope of the argument.

Amobnc · Answer

The problem with these types of questions is that we add our thoughts to the AC's subconsciously that turn these answers correct in our eyes.
We must analyze these answers in an impartial manner and when we go through them we must ask ourselves:

Can I assume that this is true based only on what's said in the question stem? 
Am I (myself) making an assumption on this AC?

This is what has worked for me ultimately when deciding between the last 2.
Asking the questions above typically pokes holes on the wrong one.

Keep up the good work!

kush4 · Answer

The option  C  is wrong because although science is considered as morally neutral the author is not talking about the concequences of theoretical research it rather focuses on the concequences of traditional value system.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Ethicist: Although science is frequently said to be morally neutral, i

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

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Ethicist: Although science is frequently said to be morally neutral, i

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

My Rewards