Geneticist: Billions of dollars are

Answer choices

1. A

   Weak Evidence/Conclusion Match2% picked this

   Experiments that have the potential to help the whole human race are more worthwhile than those that help only

   Given that other research could have practical consequences such as making edible plants stronger and healthier whereas human gene research has few practical consequences, we might surmise that Other Research has more potential to help the whole human race. But saying that anything would help "the whole human race" is a pretty extreme idea. And this answer isn't phrased in Relative language. Can we confidently say the evidence told us that Other Genetic Research has the potential to help the whole human race? No, there's no language match for that. Also, even if we made that step away from the actual language of the Evidence, this is only allowing us to say, "Experiments in Other Research are more worthwhile than experiments in Human Gene Research". From there we'd be assuming "the more worthwhile, the more funding it should get", in order to connect to the conclusion. Overall, this answer doesn't seem totally off, but its connection to the wording in the evidence and to that in the conclusion is strained on two levels.

   2%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match10% picked this

   Experiments that focus on the genetics of plants are more practical than those that focus on the

   This would only help us to conclude which form of experiment / research is more practical, but our job is to find a principle that helps us to conclude which type of experiment / research should get more/less funding.

   10%
3. C

   Weak Conclusion Match Bad Evidence Match4% picked this

   Experiments that help prevent malnutrition are more worthwhile than those that help prevent merely

   Just like (A), this is only usable to conclude that one form of experiment/research is more worthwhile than another, but the conclusion is about which form should be more funded. This answer's connection to evidence language is even more distant than (A)'s, since we never heard that any research could prevent malnutrition or prevent undesirable personality traits.

   4%
4. D

   Correct83% picked this

   Experiments that have modest but practical goals are more worthwhile than those that have impressive goals

   Why this is right

   Like (A) and (C), this is only allowing to conclude that one form of research is more worthwhile than another. We have to add in our common sense that "the more worthwhile research should be given more funding". Human Gene Research was said to have few practical consequences. Did it also have impressive goals? Sure, "a new understanding of human nature" is an impressive goal! Other Gene Research was described as "more mundane and practical", so it is more modest / humdrum / everyday, but definitely has practical goals. According to this answer, then, experiments in Human Gene Research are less worthwhile than are those in Other Genetic Research. This ended up having the feel of the Weighing Tradeoffs style of answer.

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   83%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match0% picked this

   Experiments that get little media attention and are not widely supported by the public are more valuable than are those that get much media

   In order to apply this answer to the conversation at hand, we would need to know that Human Gene Research gets a lot of media coverage and has wide public support. And we'd need to know that Other Genetic Research gets little media attention and is not widely supported by the public. We have no idea whether, or to what extent, the public supports either one of these types of research.

   0%