#24 - Many major scientific discoveries of the past were

[MBG13]

I'm hoping someone could explain why A is better than E. I believe I know the difference, but I want to confirm that I'm not missing anything else crucial.

When I first read the argument, this is what I quickly wrote down as my understanding of the stimulus:

(A) major discoveries need serependity
(B) Now that serendipity is not possible because of grants and scientist needing to be focused only on what they are being paid to discover.

I was between A and E and I picked E, because it seem to match more of my thinking. After looking at the answer sheet and seeing that it was wrong and that A is the right answer, I was a little stumped.

After further thought I think, I made two mistakes:
(1) Major discoveries don't NEED serendipity (Many does not equal need).
(2) The phrase "in general" does not equal NEED (so even if my A below was correct, "E" is wrong b/c "In general")

But I'm still struggling with how A is correct.

[Kristina Moen]

Hi MBG,

Glad that you are reviewing your work and your thought process. Identifying where you went wrong is one of the best ways to study and learn from the practice tests.

Keep in mind that this is an Assumption question. So we are looking for an answer choice that MUST BE TRUE for the argument to work. It is something on which the argument depends.

Let's take a look at the wording in the stimulus again:
"Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of serendipity, the chance discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought. "

This does not tell us that serendipity is required for major scientific discoveries. The word "product" is a Causal Reasoning Indicator. So we know that the author is describing cause and effect. The author is saying that in the past, many major scientific discoveries were caused by serendipity. Just because one thing causes another, does not mean it's required. Great job reviewing this. Causation comes up frequently on the test, and it's a common error to assume that causation = conditional reasoning (where one thing is required for another).

Then we are told that: "Because such grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research, investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research."

Let's look at answer choice (A) again: "Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research." You can use the Assumption Negation Technique and negate the statement. If the negated statement kills the conclusion (the last sentence of the stimulus), then it is the correct answer choice.

What if there were findings that an investigator did NOT seek that were still relevant for the funded research? Then, the researchers would STILL make a discovery based on serendipity. That would kill the conclusion. So the statement that "Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research" is required by the argument.

[MBG13]

Ahhhhh that's what I missed: cause and effect! That makes sense! Thanks so much.

[taxstonefromthefeds]

Also, AC E appears to be playing Shell Games. The stimulus is concerned with "scientific discoveries", not only "the most valuable scientific discoveries".

[Jonathan Evans]

Yes, precisely, Taxstone!

The information in (E) is both a Shell Game and Out of Scope. We are not interested in the "most valuable" discoveries or in any relative degree here. We are only interested in the core connection between serendipity and the possibility of any discovery.

Very good job!

[heartofsunshine]

Hi there, I am between A and B on this one. I am trying to understand why A is correct. I somewhat understand the reasoning that was stated above, but could you help me understand more deeply why B is incorrect? My thought process was if Serendipity happened in the past to achieve scientific discovery, this must mean that they didn't have to make clear predictions about what they would discover.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi again Sunshine!

This is another Assumption question so it's important to remember that we are looking for what is necessary to the argument in the stimulus and the Assumption Negation Technique is a great way for us to test out answer choices.

The conclusion of this argument is that under the prevailing circumstances (that is, that investigators ignore findings that do not directly bear on the funded research), serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery. So in the answer choices we're looking for something that is REQUIRED for serendipity to no longer be able to play a role in scientific discovery.

Answer choice (B) tells us that in the past, few scientific investigators attempted to make clear predictions of the outcome of their research. Let's try out that Assumption Negation Technique. To take the opposite of answer choice (B), we could take the opposite of "few" and say "many". So if a bunch of scientific investigators in the past attempted to make clear predictions about the outcome of their research, does that attack out argument that serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery? Not really. Because the author tells us that the reason that investigators are currently ignoring findings unrelated to their funded research. Attempting to make clear predictions about the outcomes of their research is not what's getting in the way of serendipitous discoveries. The problem is that research is heavily dependent on grants so researchers only pay attention to the findings that are specifically related to that funded research.

If we use the Assumption Negation Technique with answer choice (A), we find that the opposite of (A) is that there are can be findings that an investigator does not purposely seek that can still directly bear on the investigator's research. If this were the case, then a researched might make serendipitous (unpredicted) findings that they would not ignore because they are still related to the funded research. This negation would attack our argument that serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery, and so, answer choice (A) is necessary for the conclusion of the stimulus.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[andriana.caban]

Answer choice (B) tells us that in the past, few scientific investigators attempted to make clear predictions of the outcome of their research. Let's try out that Assumption Negation Technique. To take the opposite of answer choice (B), we could take the opposite of "few" and say "many". So if a bunch of scientific investigators in the past attempted to make clear predictions about the outcome of their research, does that attack out argument that serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery? Not really. Because the author tells us that the reason that investigators are currently ignoring findings unrelated to their funded research. Attempting to make clear predictions about the outcomes of their research is not what's getting in the way of serendipitous discoveries. The problem is that research is heavily dependent on grants so researchers only pay attention to the findings that are specifically related to that funded research.

Hi!

I'm confused as to how the logical opposite of "few" is "many". I thought the opposite was "none". Since few is synonymous to some and the opposite of some is none, how can the above be true?

[Adam Tyson]

"Few" does indicate "some," andriana, but it means more than just that. It means "a small amount." If I have 100 books on my bookshelf, and some of them are mysteries, that could mean anywhere from 1 mystery to all 100 of them. But if I say that few are mysteries, that means not many, maybe just a couple. It gets a bit subjective - would 20 mysteries be a few? Would 50 be a few? Where do we draw the line? That's why "few" cannot be treated as meaning "some", and it is better to negate it with "many" or perhaps "not just a few."

[Henry Z]

Diagram: grants--->clear projection ---> ～ irrelevant ---> ～ serendipity
Contrapositive: serendipity ---> irrelevant ---> ～ clear projection--->～grants

I chose (B) because it basically says "～clear projection". Isn't that required by serendipity?

Or is the diagram wrong because "clear projection ---> ～ irrelevant" should be causal, not conditional?