Q11 - Scientific research at a certain

[jiyoonsim]

I understand why A) is an answer. But if A) is the correct answer, why can't C) be?

[timmydoeslsat]

I understand why A) is an answer. But if A) is the correct answer, why can't C) be?

The reason that C is an incorrect answer choice is that we are not concerned with the motive behind the promise. This answer choice states that they made the promise for the foundation to withdraw its threat. I would say that this probably did happen! It is not a flaw!

The flaw is that the foundation is contributing X number of dollars to institution Z.

Just because the institution promises that contribution X will not directly aide in the weapons research, the fact that the money is going to institution Z is enough to say that the weapons program will indirectly benefit. The institution will not have to find more donations with the foundation still on board.

Answer choice A addresses this. It states that the foundation did not consider the possibility that the availability of their money to the school will give the school a chance to redirect funds to the weapons research it would not have otherwise had the opportunity to do.

[janewhite123]

Hi,

Please could someone explain this question further.

I crossed off A because i though the foundation was concerned with how its funds will be utilized and didnt want to support weapons research. I dont see how it is concerned about other funds being redirected.

I choose C.

[maryadkins]

The university promised it wouldn't use the foundation's money for weapons research --> weapons research would not benefit from the foundation's grant

(C) isn't an assumption. That's why the university did make its promise"”to remove the threat. This also just doesn't link the premises to the conclusion.

But (A) is good because money is money. The foundation isn't caring about the physical dollars that it's putting in. If its money goes to non-weapons and that exact amount of money is transferred to be used on weapons research, that's essentially the same thing as the foundation supporting the weapons research; money is money. This means that DEFINITELY the weapons research would benefit from their grant"”it's getting money it otherwise wouldn't have gotten.

(B) is irrelevant
(D) misses the point"”this isn't about intention
(E) also focuses on the wrong issue here

Hope this helps!

[WaltGrace1983]

I crossed (D) out because the argument never said anything about NOT using the money. The argument merely said that, because it is not directly going to weapons research, the money will not benefit weapons research.

I don't see much wrong with the word "intention," but maybe I am not fully understanding this question.

I think that (D) is a trap answer because the first part seems pretty good, "It confuses he intention of not using a sum of money for a particular purpose." However, the author never says or implies an "intention to not use that sum of money at all."

What do you think?

[maryadkins]

You're right about the last part being another reason (D) is wrong. But intention is still also a problem. The university promised it won't use it for weapons research. So we're past intention—we're talking about commitment now. I don't see intention as being relevant to what's happening because the intention has already been made clear and turned into a promise. It's a non-issue.

[RoeRoeW338]

Hi, I don’t think (A)it’s a correct answer. Because if the university redirect money from humanitarian uses to weapons research, it does not qualify the university’s promise. The money redirected is still considered to be used for weapons research.
I could only think of one possibility to qualify both the university’s promise and the foundation’s conclusion: the university could use the fund to develop some parts of the weapon meanwhile stating the parts were not intended for weapon research. But with the funding of the development of all these parts, they could claim the parts are not intended for weapon research use. So the development of all the parts qualifies both the university’s promise and the foundation’s conclusion. But the ultimate purpose is to develop weapons. So (D) qualifies this situation.

[Laura Damone]

What A is saying is that money not from the foundation could be redirected from humanitarian research to weapons research. That would allow the university to keep its promise of not spending foundation money on weapons research.

Consider this analogy. My kid has 3 bucks. School lunch costs 4 bucks. I tell my kid "Hey, here's another two bucks for lunch. Don't spend this money on candy!"

He agrees.

But then he comes home from school with candy! Did he break his promise? Not necessarily. He might have spent the two bucks I gave him on lunch, used 2 of his own dollars to finish paying for lunch, and spent his final dollar on candy. The funds I gave him didn't technically pay for his candy. However, the fact that I gave him those funds allowed him to redirect a dollar that would have otherwise been spent on lunch and buy candy with it instead. So, while he didn't break his promise not to spend my money on candy, my money did contribute to him getting candy.

Hope this helps!

[RoeRoeW338]

Thank you! It helps a lot!