Dear
mSKRThanks 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
Quote:
it was feared that they would impose silence about proprietary results on their in-house researchers and their academic consultants
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.