Q11 - Cynthia: Corporations amply fund research

[dan]

11. (E)
Question type: Analyze Argument Structure
In order to identify the point of disagreement, we must first identify the specific overlap between Cynthia’s comment and Luis’s response. The subject that overlaps both arguments is what type of scientific projects the government should fund. Cynthia feels the government should fund projects that advance our theoretical understanding of nature, while Luis feels government ought to fund only research that yields practical benefit.

Answer choice (E) correctly represents this disagreement.

(A) infers too far beyond what is stated.
(B) is more specific than the argument is.
(C) is an overly extreme representation of Luis’s point.
(D) infers beyond what is stated.

[PRADEEPCHANDY]

i chose B because it seemed clear and concise

How to decide whether an option is too specific or too general

[dan]

The question you want to ask yourself is: Do I know what Cynthia and Luis would say about answer (B)? We know that Cynthia would agree with studying the effects of chemical fertilizers on crops if it would lead to more theoretical knowledge, and we know that Luis would be in favor of it if it would lead to practical applications. By the description, it seems it would lead to practical applications (higher yields), but we're unsure if it would lead to theoretical knowledge of nature. Thus, we can't know how Cynthia would react to the study proposed in (B).

In general, you want to treat these disagreement questions like inference questions. Do we know for certain what person #1 would say about this? Do we know for certain what person #2 would say about this? If the answer to either one of those questions is no, then we can't know if they disagree about it.

Hope that helps.

[PRADEEPCHANDY]

Thank you this is useful

[jamiejames]

So E is correct because Cynthia would agree because it should further our theoretical knowledge of nature, and Luis would disagree because he thinks that it should lead to more useful technologies?

[timmydoeslsat]

Cynthia would agree with (E) due to her believing that the goal of science is to gain knowledge of the world.

Luis would disagree with (E) as he believes that in order to receive funding government funding, the research is expected to yield practical applications.

[jimmy902o]

can someone please go more into why A is wrong? luis says "only research that is expected to yield apps should be funded with cynthia takes the broader stance. A says that the research "might" have unforeseen benefits... seems to fit the bill for me

[Nina]

i still don't quite get how D "infers beyond what stated". Can someone please explain a little bit?

Thanks a lot!

[bbirdwell]

Well, as an indicator, notice the words "sole" and "exclusive." Your LSAT spidey-sense should be on the alert for such limiting/categorical modifiers. They're not always wrong, of course, but they are very important to notice.

Now ask yourself "What does Cynthia think about research whose sole purpose is to develop new technologies?" Hmm. It's not very clear, because we don't know if such research would or would not further our theoretical knowledge.

So we ask "What kind of research does she think should be funded exclusively by corporations?" Again, we don't know. I think what is meant by "infers beyond what is stated" is that we know Cynthia thinks the govt should help fund theoretical research, but she doesn't say that all other research should NOT be funded by the government.

At this point, we could eliminate (D) without even considering Luis's position, since Cynthia's is unclear. Our correct answer must have a definite "yes" and a definite "no" vote from each person.

[sumukh09]

Not quite sure I understand why E is correct. I don't really see the overlap between the two speakers' arguments in E. Thanks in advance

[etwcho]

I only got to the correct answer after POE. Here's what I think about this question.

In Cynthia’s premise, she talks about the fundamental goal of science which Luis doesn't partake in, therefore, Luis’s response must be directed towards Cynthia’s conclusion, government funding. Noting this overlap, we go to the answers.

E) Cynthia thinks government should fund projects that seek to further the theoretical knowledge of nature, so she wouldn't care whether a theoretical research led to new and useful technologies. On the other hand, Luis argues that government should only fund research expected to yield practical applications. Hence the issue here is that Cynthia think some % of funding should be directed towards theoretical research, whereas Luis thinks all 100% (hence "only") should go towards research expected to yield practical applications.

For example, let’s say that there is Mike and Sara, who are high-school seniors and in a debate about choosing a college. Mike wants to go to a liberal art college because he thinks some part of higher education should include learning about broad subjects. However, Sara thinks otherwise. She wants to go to a professional college because she thinks college is all about getting a job after graduating. If a college education doesn't 100% contribute towards getting a job, 4-years’ worth of college tuition (or funding by parents) cannot be justified.

A) Unforeseen is OOS. Even if Cynthia did argue that furthering theoretical research had a chance to uncover practical application, Luis would agree.
B) Cynthia only proposes what should be funded. She doesn't disagree to the funding of research with practical benefits, but she disagrees on the notion that the funding of such research should be the only thing
C) Both would disagree to this point. Cynthia obviously supports the funding of theoretical research and Luis would also support theoretical research (at least some) if it led to practical benefits
D) Only Cynthia speaks about corporation.


Please let me know if something seems off!
Cheers

[ptewarie]

Not quite sure I understand why E is correct. I don't really see the overlap between the two speakers' arguments in E. Thanks in advance

In point of issue questions, cut through the clutter and just find conclusions of both speakers:

Speaker 1 conclusion:
Government should help fund projects that help us increase our theoretical knowledge:

Speaker 2 conclusion: Govt should fund projects ONLY IF they yield practical applications

note that speaker two uses formal logic and we can infer that he claims:
Fund ONLY IF practical
If not practical--> not fund (contrapositive)

Thus, under the conclusion stipulated by speaker 2, the conclusion of speaker 1- "that govt should fund projects for theoretical knowledge", is invalidated( since it is "not practical" and hence should not be funded).

Thus the source of disagreement is the range of benefits that must be true for the research to be granted government funds.

A correct answer choice must :
a. be precisely adressed by both speakers(with the same scope)
b. be a source of contention of speakers, such that one author would say : "yes" and the other would say "no"

Lets look at AC:
A: no, neither authors deals with whether there are unforseable benefits, so it does not meet the "scope criteria". OMIT

B: This answer choice would work if the first author had also used conditional reasoning to make his/her claim by noting that funding ONLY if theoretical. However, since the author only uses "should", no strong inferences can be made to regards whether author 1 would disagree with granting gov't funds for this project. For all we know, he/she might be completely fine with that.
Remember- author 1 is saying that govt funds SHOULD go to projects that improve theoretical knowledge, not that it must ONLY go to theoretical knowledge

C. first part is not addressed by either authors

D. no info from either speakers regarding corporations

E. Let's see.
Author 1: Says that govt should fund theoretical projects so he/she would agree with this statement .
Author 2: Says that funding ONLY if practical applications and this if no practical application, then NO funding
so author 2 would definitely disagree with this statement.

Here, thus, we have the source of contention

[jminton1]

can someone please go more into why A is wrong? luis says "only research that is expected to yield apps should be funded with cynthia takes the broader stance. A says that the research "might" have unforeseen benefits... seems to fit the bill for me

On my first read through I chose A but switched to E during blind review.

Here is why I switched answers:

A reads: "The government should help fund pure theoretical research because such research might have unforeseen practical applications in fields such as agriculture and medicine."

Yes, C and L would disagree about whether the government should help fund pure theoretical research BUT not because this research might have unforeseen applications BUT because these experiments further our theoretical knowledge.

Right? C doesn't make the claim that the government should do x because it may have unforeseen benefits (this is the inference the question is teasing us to make) but rather C feels we should do X only because it may/will further our theoretical knowledge.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Identify the Disagreement questions can often be a bit tricky. The correct answer targets the overlap between the two speakers, but sometimes this overlap can be tough to specifically identify. It's not sufficient to focus only on the conclusions of the two speakers, as the overlaps may well occur in some other part of their arguments.

The overlap here is between what things they think the government should fund. Cynthia believes the gov't should fund any basic research projects that further our theoretical knowledge. Luis believes that the gov't should only fund the research that is expected to yield practical applications.

Note that Cynthia's belief is expansive - anything that fits her criteria should definitely get funded. She never points out anything that *shouldn't* be funded. Luis's belief is restrictive - he thinks anything that fails to have expected practical benefit should NOT be funded. So, if some research fit both criteria, Cynthia would want to fund it and Luis definitely would not!

(E) targets this overlap, albeit in relatively general language. Cynthia would agree with the statement, as she believes that ANY research that furthers our theoretical knowledge should be funded, regardless of practical effect. Luis, however, would disagree with the statement - he absolutely believes that research needs to be expected to lead to new technologies in order to merit funding!

Now, it's still possible to muscle through problems like this, even if you have trouble seeing the overlap right up front. For each answer choice, as Dan says above, treat it an inference question: 1) Do I know for certain what Cynthia's opinion on this statement is? 2) Do I know for certain what Luis's opinion on this statement is? 3) If so, do they contradict?

Let's apply this to the incorrect answers:
(A) We don't know whether Cynthia would agree with the "because" portion of the statement! She wants all theoretical research to get funded because it expands our theoretical understanding. She never tells us how she feels about unforeseen benefits as, perhaps, an additional reason to fund research. Luis would disagree with this statement, as he only wants things funded that have an expected practical result - the mere possibility of some future unforeseen benefit is not enough for him.

(B)We have no idea what Cynthia would think about this project. She'll fund anything that expands our theoretical understandings, but it's not clear whether this project would.

(C)Cynthia would clearly disagree with this, as she is all about funding theoretical research. But Luis would not necessarily agree. He would refuse to fund anything without practical benefit, but if there were even a small number of theoretical research projects that were expected to have a practical benefit, he could support funding those. The jump from "most don't have practical benefit" to "don't fund any" is not one we know that Luis would make.

(D)We have no idea what Cynthia would think about this statement. She never tells us how she feels about research dedicated only to new technology. She also never tells us what she thinks corporations should or should not fund. What she does tell us is that research that furthers our theoretical understanding should be funded by the government - but she never says that's the *only* thing that should be funded by the government.

Right? C doesn't make the claim that the government should do x because it may have unforeseen benefits (this is the inference the question is teasing us to make) but rather C feels we should do X only because it may/will further our theoretical knowledge.

Be careful! Don't overstate Cynthia's position. She believes that the government should fund any research that will further our theoretical knowledge - not that that is the only possible reason to fund research. So it's *possible* that Cynthia would agree with (A), but we don't have any evidence for that.




I hope this helps clear a few things up on a tough Identify the Disagreement question!

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Cynthia's argument:

Premise: Fundamental goal of science is to achieve comprehensive knowledge of the workings of the universe
Conclusion: Government should help fund those basic scientific research projects that seek to further our theoretical knowledge of nature.


Luis's argument:

Premise: The goal of government support of scientific research is to generate technological advances that will benefit society as a whole.
Conclusion: Only research that is expected to yield practical applications industries like agri and medicine should be funded.

Point of issue: What types of research the government should fund, Cynthia thinks any that seeks to further our theoretical knowledge of nature, luis's thinks only those that are expected to yield practical benefits.

(A) Tempting but no. Luis would straight up disagree with this but it's not clear what Cynthia's view on this would be since she argues that government should fund pure scientific research not on the basis that it might have unforeseen practical applications but on the basis that it is the fundamental goal of science to achieve a comprehensive knowledge of the world.
(B) Tempting as well. Luis would disagree with this, but it's not clear what Cynthia's view on this would be since we have no idea if such a study would further our theoretical knowledge of nature.
(C) Both would disagree with this.
(D) We have no idea what their views on this would be.
(E) Bingo.

[JovyT883]

For (B), we don't know if Cynthia would agree/disagree because we don't know what project does she think the Gov should not fund. In the stimulus, we only know Cynthia would agree that the government should fund research that further the theoretical knowledge, but that does not mean the Gov should not fund projects that have practical application right?

Also, is "research project in theoretical science" in (C) equivalent to "research project seek to further theoretical knowledge of nature" in the stimulus?

For (C), we don't know if Luis will agree or disagree because the only thing we know from stimulus is "Gov fund projects --> research that is expected to yield practical applications" (ie. every gov funded research should have practical application), but that does not mean that every research that has practical application should be funded by Gov.

Are my interpretations correct?

Thanks!

[GolddiggerF208]

I feel the difficulty to choose (E) simply because I didn't see "new and useful technologies" as interchangeable with "practical applications". Could anyone further explain? Thanks!