Q18 - Essayist: The way science

[lhermary]

Why is E right and C wrong?

How can I be sure not to make this error in the future?

Thanks

[jamiejames]

The reasoning for answer choice E lies in the sentence "but we need to to determine whether the changes are warranted, taking into account their price." So before deciding whether impositions are costly, we first need to decide whether the changes are warranted.

Also, the changes mentioned are only specific to two examples: Animal testing, and recombinant DNA." Answer choice E jumps from two examples, to 'we should apply this concept to the entire of science,' just because it would hurt science to restrict animal testing. It's too big a change in scale, essentially.

[goriano]

The reasoning for answer choice E lies in the sentence "but we need to to determine whether the changes are warranted, taking into account their price." So before deciding whether impositions are costly, we first need to decide whether the changes are warranted.

Also, the changes mentioned are only specific to two examples: Animal testing, and recombinant DNA." Answer choice E jumps from two examples, to 'we should apply this concept to the entire of science,' just because it would hurt science to restrict animal testing. It's too big a change in scale, essentially.

I'm lost on this one. Could someone break down this argument?

I couldn't figure out what the conclusion was and identified it as
"But such massive interventions would be costly and would change the character of science," which mapped up closest to (D).

[KakaJaja]

Here is my thought:

I think the conclusion is the summary of the first two sentences: we can change the way science is conducted, but there is a price to weigh.

Following there are two examples (animal in research and recombinant DNA) which almost strictly conform with the pattern of the first two sentences: we can.... but the cost is.....

Finally there is a generalization, still use the pattern: we can.... but the consequence is......

So it seems like the author keeps warning us again and again about the cost we need to consider.

A: "should not change" is not the attitude of the author
B: "more closely" is kinda vague. More importantly, "change the character of science" is too narrow, it's not the only price we have to pay.
C: It's only half of what the author wanna say
D: The author didn't just tell us the price is high, but also ask us to determine whether the change worth the cost.
E: maybe not a perfect answer, but compared with others, it much better paraphrased the first two sentences of the argument.

[patrice.antoine]

The reasoning for answer choice E lies in the sentence "but we need to to determine whether the changes are warranted, taking into account their price." So before deciding whether impositions are costly, we first need to decide whether the changes are warranted.

Also, the changes mentioned are only specific to two examples: Animal testing, and recombinant DNA." Answer choice E jumps from two examples, to 'we should apply this concept to the entire of science,' just because it would hurt science to restrict animal testing. It's too big a change in scale, essentially.

I'm lost on this one. Could someone break down this argument?

I couldn't figure out what the conclusion was and identified it as
"But such massive interventions would be costly and would change the character of science," which mapped up closest to (D).

The above is a secondary conclusion and not the main conclusion.

"But we need to determine whether the changes are warranted,
taking into account their price" is the main conclusion.

(D) is out because "very costly" is an exaggeration of "account their price".

[WhimsicalWillow]

I was stumped on whether or not the conclusion was "Such massive interventions would be costly and would change the character of science" or we need to determine whether the changes are warranted taking into account their price.

I was able to ID the correct conclusion "we need to determine whether the changes are warranted..." ONLY after performing the THEREFORE test:
1) we need to determine whether the changes are warranted, taking into account their price THEREFORE such massive interventions would be costly and would change the character of science

2) Such massive interventions would be costly and would change the character of science THEREFORE we need to determine whether the changes are warranted taking into account their price

Is there a quicker way to ID the conclusion? Performing the THEREFORE test here took me a quite a bit of time...

[Laura Damone]

Here are a couple things to keep in mind that can help you speed up.

1. In an IDC question, they're always trying to hide the conclusion. The last line in the stimulus is not a good hiding place, because that's where most people expect the conclusion to be. So, if you are debating between the second line and the last line, the second line is almost always the better bet.

2. Recommendations are almost always the main conclusion of their argument. Why? Because a recommendation can't really serve as evidence for anything else. So, if you are debating between a recommendation and a more factual statement, the recommendation is almost always the better bet.

Hope this helps!

[LizaK873]

The reasoning for answer choice E lies in the sentence "but we need to to determine whether the changes are warranted, taking into account their price." So before deciding whether impositions are costly, we first need to decide whether the changes are warranted.

Also, the changes mentioned are only specific to two examples: Animal testing, and recombinant DNA." Answer choice E jumps from two examples, to 'we should apply this concept to the entire of science,' just because it would hurt science to restrict animal testing. It's too big a change in scale, essentially.

I'm lost on this one. Could someone break down this argument?

I couldn't figure out what the conclusion was and identified it as
"But such massive interventions would be costly and would change the character of science," which mapped up closest to (D).

D) is ruled out because it mentions [impositions of restrictions], which specifically ONLY refers to the second last sentence. end animal testing is not an example of restriction.

Author's points:
- conduction and regulations can be changed
- but are changes worth cost?
- example of change in conduction: end animal testing ----> cost: abandon or make costly a lot of research
- example of change in restriction: curtail recombinant DNA testing AND other restrictions AND create fraud police to enforce the restrictions ----> cost: costly (doesn't say what the cost is, just that there IS a cost) AND change character of science


A) author never explicitly says "don't make changes". The author's attitude can be seen as 'less enthusiastic', which is different than 'absolutely against'.
B) summarizes result of second example, but not first
C) summarizes first point, but cannot be the conclusion because why does other continue immediately (with a "but") to describe what the cost is? cost is irrelevant if C is to be the conclusion, should instead elaborate on what CAN be changed.
D) summarizes second example, but not first
E) all points can be used to support E as a conclusion