#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.