For this question, I diagrammed the stimulus as follows:
public funding justified indication of how public will benefit
The stimulus concludes that if the critics are correct, then there would not be public support.
Based on this, I question whether the principle above should be followed considering that there would not be public support for the funding even if there is an indication of how the public will benefit. For this reason, is that why answer E is correct?
#20- Scientist: Some critics of public funding for this
You did a great job diagramming! The scientists here are basically arguing that the critics are wrong - there's no indication of how the public will benefit, but there is still strong public support, and it should be funded. Therefore, E is correct.
Thank you for the explanation!
Why isn't A the right answer? I thought that if the social impact of the new drugs being tested were poorly understood then they shouldn't be brought to the market as quickly.
Thanks for asking this question, which has a very simple answer (I believe ) .
It appears that you have misread the answer key. Answer choice (A) is the correct answer for this question.
Let me know if I can help further.
Hi Ron, I meant to ask why B isn't the right answer. I thought that if the social impact of the new drugs being tested were poorly understood then they shouldn't be brought to the market as quickly. Sorry about the typo!
Ah! That makes more sense.
The problem with answer choice (B) is that it references drugs that are "being tested," but not necessarily being marketed. Since we do not know whether the drugs referenced in answer choice (B) are being brought to the marketplace, (B) has no impact on the conclusion.
I thought E was the right answer?
Sorry for the confusion. E is the correct answer.
I thought this stimulus was really obtuse. Even for the test-makers, this was tough. Emily's response, though helpful, basically says that E is the right answer becuase it is what the question says. So I want to make sure I understand it fully
I try to personalize tough questions like this one in order to get it right.
Here's my thought process:
The Scientist is ranting about some critics. The critics say that funding should be granted only if we can prove that the public can benefit from the project. But the scientist says that the critics are wrong. Why? Because there is a lot of public support for the project.
I thought that I was missing something because that makes absolutely no sense (Right??). So on the whole, the stimulus doesn't make very much sense. I initially thought that this would be a Justify question, beucase the stimulus is fairly nonsensical. So when I saw "MBT," I was a little nervous. We are asked to go off of the scientist's argument, that public support shows that the critics are wrong.
There was NOT a good prephrase here. I went in more or less blind but knowing we had to find something that the SCIENTIST thought. (A), (B), (C), and (D) are just confusingly worded nonsense.
Answer (E) then comes (also confusingly) by stating that public benefit (what the critics say matters a lot) is NOT a requirement for research funding. This sort-of backs up the scientist's claim that public approval can be a requirement for research funding (Or rather that indication of public benefit is NOT a requirement because there is widespread public approval). Thus, though confusing and imperfect, it is the right answer.
Is there a better way to do this? I struggled a lot with this question. My troubles essentially surrounded how public support related to an indication that the public benefitted. I thought that maybe the two were related somehow. But in this stimulus, they are NOT, right? We cannot assume that the support indicates ANYTHING about how the two were related.