Professor: Unfortunately, pharmaceutical

Answer choices

1. A

   Illegal Opposite11% picked this

   If the chemistry department secures more funding for basic science research, its members will make significant

   This is illegally flipping the light switch on the idea we did have. We were told if not more funding, unlikely significant advances This is saying if yes more funding, then yes significant advances

   11%
2. B

   Wrong Causal Sequence7% picked this

   If the chemistry department's prestige increases substantially, then it is highly likely that the department's funding from sources other than

   Our author is thinking that things could happen in this causal order: 1. department gets more funding for basic research from nonprofits 2. department makes a significant advance in basic research 3. department gains sweet, sweet prestige This answer is saying "If #3 happens, then it is highly likely that #1 will happen after (subsequently)."

   7%
3. C

   Out of Scope: forego for-profit funding7% picked this

   Members of the chemistry department are unlikely to make significant advances in basic science research if the department does not forego the funding

   Our author was never suggesting that we get rid of the funding from for-profit institutions. His notion of "unfortunately" is more a commentary on the fact that his government / fellow citizens don't seem to be allocating much funding towards basic research in chemistry. He's sad he can only get money from for-profit places, not sad that he is getting money from them.

   7%
4. D

   Correct68% picked this

   The chemistry department's funding for basic science research is not likely to increase if its funding from sources other than

   Why this is right

   Since this answer is conditional, we can consider whether it's "If left side, then right side" logic matches a move that the author made (we may have to contrapose it to see). funding from funding for basic nonprofits ? research unlikely doesn't increase to increase Yeah, this seems to match his thinking. After all, his conclusion is making it seem like nonprofits are the best/only hope for getting more funding for basic research. So this answer is just saying, "if they aren't going to give us more money, then we're probably not going to get more money". Here's a formal look at the logic of this argument. unless (if-not) we get more funding for BSR, unlikely ~ Fund ? ~Adv to make advances in BSR BSR ? without (if-not) more funding ~ Fund ? ~Adv from nonprofits, unlikely NP ? to make advances in BSR If we're trying to build the logic path the conclusion claims: ~Fund NP ? -------------------> ~Adv And this is what our evidence says, ~Fund BSR ? ----> ~Adv Then the missing link is ~Fund NP ? ? ~Fund BSR ? One final way to think about this answer is that it ruled out our possible objections about "couldn't you get more funding from the for-profits or from rich individuals?" This says, "No! If we don't get more from non-profits, we're unlikely to get more from anyone."

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

   68%
5. E

   Out of Scope: likely to benefit8% picked this

   The profit-driven institutions that currently provide almost all of the chemistry department's funding are not likely to benefit

   The argument isn't ever discussing who would or wouldn't benefit from advances in basic science research (other than the chemistry department benefiting from prestige). If we negate this answer, does it weaken the argument? If we say that the for-profit institutions who currently comprise the bulk of the chemistry department's funding are likely to benefit from basic science research, are we weakening the argument? Not really. Maybe we could say, "Well since the for-profits are likely to benefit, they might be willing to invest more funding". That's just a pretty weak objection here, since the for-profits are already contributing a lot of funding. Those companies might already be allocating as much of their budget as they can to basic science research. Since "likely to benefit" means better than 50% chance, negating this answer means less than 50% chance. Does the author really care whether the for-profit institutions have a 51% chance vs. a 49% chance of benefiting from basic science research?

   8%