#11 - Cynthia: Corporations amply fund research that

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (E)

In this dialogue, Cynthia and Luis discuss the proper justification for government support of scientific research. While Cynthia asserts that government support should be intended to "achieve a comprehensive knowledge of the workings of the universe." Luis disagrees, asserting that the basic goal of such support is "to generate technological advances that benefit society as a whole."

In response to this question stem, we can apply the Agree/Disagree Test: the correct answer choice will present a statement with which one of our speakers will agree, while the other disagrees.

Answer choice (A): This statement would probably not be appealing to either speaker, because unforeseen benefit is not a justification offered by either Cynthia or Luis.

Answer choice (B): Luis' assertion is that "only research expected to yield practical outcomes should be funded": Funding → research that yields practical outcomes

While Cynthia would probably agree with this assertion, we cannot say with certainty how Luis would respond—his rule allows for practical research that does not receive funding.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice is strongly worded, with the author concluding that "no research projects should be funded" in spite of the fact that some are both theoretically based and have practical application. Where those research projects are concerned, both speakers may disagree, and there is certainly no way to conclude that they would disagree, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): Based on the dialogue presented in the stimulus, neither speaker would necessarily agree with the assertion that corporations should be the exclusive financiers of such research.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Cynthia would agree with this statement, since she believes that the primary goal should be advancing our basic understanding. Luis, meanwhile, would disagree, because his assertion is that the basic goal of government support is to create new and useful technologies.

[kristinaroz93]

"cynthia: Corporations amply fund reasearch.."

This is the explanation for choice B:
Luis' assertion is that "only research expected to yield practical outcomes should be funded": Funding → research that yields practical outcomes

While Cynthia would probably agree with this assertion, we cannot say with certainty how Luis would respond—his rule allows for practical research that does not receive funding.

question: Do we not know Luis's position becasue we essentially cannot make inferences about his view on things not being funded: research not yield practical outcomes-->not funded

And out of curiousity, had the word only not been there, could we assert that Luis would disagree with the statement in that scenario?

Lastly, how do we know Cynthia would probably agree? It doesn't implicitly state that the study would not bring about theoretical knowledge of nature, for how do we know that learning about fertilizers on crops does not have that affect? I feel rather Cynthia's views would be completely unknown and could sway in either direction.

[Steve Stein]

Hi Kristina,

That's a good question, and you make a great point. With that seemingly small change, taking away the word "only," that would change the entire rule:

Only research expected to yield practical applications ought to be funded:

Funded expected to yield practical applications

vs:

Research expected to yield practical applications ought to be funded.

Expected to yield practical applications ought to be funded

That answer choice provides that the purpose of the proposed study is to develop agriculture-related applications. If this study is expected to yield practical applications, it would seem to have Luis' support.

As for Cynthia, I agree that we can't say with any degree of certainty how she would feel about the study at hand, and that wording will be amended accordingly. The proposed study deals with the very practical goal of studying fertilizer-resistant seeds, and Cynthia says that the government should help to fund projects that "further our theoretical knowledge of nature." Coincidentally, on a note closely related to your point about Luis, if Cynthia's statement had included the word "only," that would make it much more likely that she would agree with answer choice (B).

Thanks again for your message, and please let me know whether everything is clear!

[kristinaroz93]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for getting back to me! I feel very clear about the Cynthia portion of the explanation (esp with the alternate scenario included of having the term only there) but I am still a bit confused regarding the first two questions:

question:
1) Do we not know Luis's position for choice B because we essentially cannot make inferences about his view on things not being funded:
research not yield practical outcomes-->not funded
I do not think I saw a response for this, but would love to hear your feedback.

2) had the word only not been there, could we assert that Luis would disagree with the statement in that scenario?

you responded: "Expected to yield practical applications -->ought to be funded

That answer choice provides that the purpose of the proposed study is to develop agriculture-related applications. If this study is expected to yield practical applications, it would seem to have Luis' support"

Does this purport to show that Luis would ultimately disagree with the statement in B due to the omission of the term only, since he will always support anything with practical applications?

Thanks in advance!

[Steve Stein]

Hi Kristen,

Thank you for your response.

1) That is correct: Luis says that only projects expected to yield practical applications should be funded:

funded expected to yield practical applications

This means that if a project is not expected to yield practical applications, then according to Luis it should not be funded. This is relayed by the contrapositive:

NOT expected to yield practical applications should NOT be funded

...according to Luis, then if something is not expected to yield practical applications, it should not be funded. And there might be many other projects that Luis does not believe should be funded, so, as you point out, there is no way to know for sure how he would feel about the proposed study at hand.

2) If you take away the word "only," that significantly broadens the spectrum of projects that would have Luis' support:

Research expected to have practical applications in fields such as agriculture and medicine ought to be funded.

Practical applications ought to be funded

As such, IF the study were expected to yield practical applications in agriculture, then based on his statements, Luis would support its funding--because, as you said, he will support anything in agriculture and medicine expected to yield practical results.

I hope that's helpful--please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[kristinaroz93]

Hi Steve,

I take it from what you wrote for number 2 that he would disgaree with B then! (Please correct me if I am wrong)

Yes your explanation is clear=)

Thanks again!

[Steve Stein]

Hi Kristina,

Thanks for your response. Again, if we take away the word "only" from Luis' statement, then he would support programs that are "expected to yield practical applications."

The proposed study has the stated purpose of developing new seed breeds--does that mean that the study should be expected to yield practical applications? I'm not entirely sure what Luis would have to say about that, but if we presume that this study falls under Luis' category of programs that are "expected to yield practical applications," then Luis would (again, if we were to remove the word "only" away from his statement) disagree with answer choice (B).

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[Tomars]

Hi!

I spent too much time wavering back and forth between A and E. E makes perfect sense to me and I understand why it fits the bill for the correct answer, but I also can't find a problem with A. Explanations I've read focus on the latter part of the sentence containing "unforeseen practical applications in fields such as....".

Cynthia ultimately seems to be saying the government should fund research for the purpose of furthering theoretical knowledge, regardless of foreseeable/expected practical applications or without limiting to those that yield practical applications. So it seems she would agree with A. Her argument doesn't hinge on the rationale A provides (because such research might have unforeseen practical applications), but it also allows for it, so long as it advances theoretical knowledge (and indeed, we are told the research is "pure theoretical research"). Ultimately it seems the reasoning in A is a subset of what Cynthia would agree with (for example, if Cynthia believes that all animals are cute, we could also rightly infer that she would believe that dogs are cute).

Luis would disagree and say the government should only fund the research if it "is expected to yield practical applications"..that is if its practical applications are foreseeable.

Please help me clarify why A is wrong.

Thank you!

[Eric Ockert]

Hi Tomars!

I think you've hit the nail right on the head with Cynthia on answer choice (A). It seems she would agree with (A), but we don't know that. Even if her argument "allows" for what (A) describes, we cannot prove from her statements that she would necessarily agree with that answer.

Remember that Point at Issue questions ultimately fall into the Prove Family. When applying the Agree/Disagree test, don't forget that you still must know what each author thinks about the answer choice before determining whether or not they agree. There simply is not enough here to show that Cynthia is automatically agreeable to (A). This answer is not actually a subset of what she believes, either. She could believe that we should fund research that furthers our theoretical understanding of nature, yet has no practical applications at all. We don't know.

Hope that helps!

[Tomars]

Hi Tomars!

I think you've hit the nail right on the head with Cynthia on answer choice (A). It seems she would agree with (A), but we don't know that. Even if her argument "allows" for what (A) describes, we cannot prove from her statements that she would necessarily agree with that answer.

Remember that Point at Issue questions ultimately fall into the Prove Family. When applying the Agree/Disagree test, don't forget that you still must know what each author thinks about the answer choice before determining whether or not they agree. There simply is not enough here to show that Cynthia is automatically agreeable to (A). This answer is not actually a subset of what she believes, either. She could believe that we should fund research that furthers our theoretical understanding of nature, yet has no practical applications at all. We don't know.

Hope that helps!

Thank you! That clarifies further and I understand A is wrong at least because I can't assume that Cynthia's position doesn't leave room for exceptions or limitations. After all, she doesn't say government should fund all scientific research projects that furthers theoretical knowledge.