#24 - Many major scientific discoveries of the past were

[Adam Tyson]

I'm not sure where "irrelevant" is coming from in your diagram, Henry. That's a bit strong, in my opinion, if you're using that as a substitute for "not directly bearing on the funded research." But regardless, the biggest problem I see is that it is focused on the past, when we cannot really prove much about what happened in the past. The stimulus tells us that there used to be a lot of serendipitous stuff happening, but now they think there can be no more serendipity in scientific discovery.

We just cannot know whether in the past any scientists tried to make clear projections. Maybe they all did? Right now it's the combination of the need to secure funding and the requirement of clear projections that is causing them to ignore things. Perhaps in the past they made clear projections, but the costs were low enough that they could afford to also pay attention to those chance discoveries, allowing them to deviate from their intended path without fear of losing crucial funds?

B is out because it's speculation based on information that we don't have. The author need not assume any such thing about the past.

[justkeepswimming]

Hello!

I chose the right answer (A) through the Negation technique but am still unsure why choice (D) is not the right answer. Is it because it's already accepted in the premise that the investigators receive these grants to begin with?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi justkeepswimming,

The stimulus states that the grants "require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research" (my emphasis). In other words, it is necessary to provide the clear projections when applying for the grants, but this does not mean that everyone who provides these clear projections is given a grant. That would be making a Mistaken Reversal by confusing what is necessary with what is sufficient.

Paraphrasing, Answer D basically states that all investigators who provide these clear projections (as part of their grant applications) receive grant funds. This is not necessary for the argument.

Using the Assumption Negation Technique for Answer D, we'd get:

Not all investigators who provide these clear projections (as part of their grant applications) receives grant funds.

That doesn't hurt the argument. The fact that some investigators who apply for grants don't receive any grant funds has no impact on the logic of the argument or the likelihood of the conclusion. Those investigators would just be out of luck and presumably unable to do their research.

As a general rule, for Assumption questions, be wary of answer choices that are very strongly worded (such as words like all, every, most, least, best, worst, always, never, primary, etc.). They are often exaggerated wrong answers. Assumptions are usually more minimal in nature, since you only want what is absolutely necessary for the argument (and no more).