Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare. Such a position ignores the lessons of experience. Many important contributions to the public welfare that resulted from scientific research were never predicted as potential outcomes of that research. Suppose that a scientist in the early twentieth century had applied for public funds to study molds: who would have predicted that such research would lead to the discovery of antibiotics - one of the greatest contributions ever made to the public welfare? Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the argument? (A) The committal of public funds for new scientific research will ensure that the public welfare will be enhanced. (B) If it were possible to predict the general outcome of a new scientific research effort, then legislators would not refuse to commit public funds for that effort. (C) Scientific discoveries that have contributed to the public welfare would have occurred sooner if public funds had been committed to the research that generated those discoveries. (D) In order to ensure that scientific research is directed toward contributing to the public welfare, legislators must commit public funds to new scientific research. (E) Lack of guarantees that new scientific research will contribute to the public welfare is not sufficient reason for legislators to refuse to commit public funds to new scientific research.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Option (E) is correct, as it aligns with the argument's main point.

Step by step solution

01

Understand the Argument

The argument highlights the importance of funding scientific research without needing guaranteed outcomes. It emphasizes that unpredictable outcomes of research have historically contributed significantly to public welfare, using the discovery of antibiotics as an example.
02

Identify the Core Reasoning

The reasoning suggests that requiring assurance of direct public welfare contributions before funding research is an oversight, as many beneficial outcomes from research could not have been foreseen. This implies that the rejection of funding solely based on lack of guaranteed outcomes is flawed.
03

Evaluate the Answer Choices

Consider each answer choice and assess if it captures the argument's main point: - (A) suggests ensured public welfare from research funding, which isn't implied by the argument. - (B) presupposes predictable outcomes for funding, which isn't the argument's focus. - (C) speculates on faster discoveries with more funding, which doesn’t directly relate to the argument's main concern. - (D) discusses directing funds specifically toward public welfare, which isn't the central argument. - (E) argues against refusal based solely on lack of guarantees, aligning with the argument's stance.
04

Select the Correct Answer

The key conclusion of the argument is that not being able to predict contributions to public welfare is insufficient grounds for refusing to fund scientific research. Answer (E) best reflects this conclusion by stating that lack of guarantees should not prevent the allocation of public funds.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Scientific Research Funding
Scientific research funding plays an essential role in advancing human knowledge and societal progress. However, not all research guarantees immediate or predictable benefits. Publicly funded research allows scientists to explore a variety of topics, some of which may not have an obvious connection to direct public welfare. But, these explorations often lead to groundbreaking discoveries that can significantly enhance public life.
- Such funding often encourages innovation and creativity by allowing researchers to explore uncharted territories. - Historical precedents, like the discovery of antibiotics, show that sometimes the most valuable outcomes are unforeseen.
Public funding can fill gaps that private funding cannot, as private companies often avoid uncertain or long-term investments. Meanwhile, public initiatives can sustain efforts in crucial, but initially obscure, fields.
Public Welfare
Public welfare benefits immensely from scientific advancements. Discoveries resulting from research often improve quality of life, advance medical care, and increase socio-economic stability. These advancements, while not always immediately visible, contribute to long-term well-being.
- When scientific research leads to the development of new technologies or medicine, public health can see marked improvements. - Scientific studies often inform public policy, driving informed decisions that benefit society at large.
The improvement to public welfare through research illustrates the importance of maintaining steady investment in scientific endeavors, even when the benefits are not immediately clear.
Unpredictable Outcomes
Science is inherently unpredictable. This unpredictability can deter decision-makers from investing in uncertain projects. However, history is replete with examples where unpredictable outcomes have led to astonishing advancements.
Uncertainty should not be a prohibitive factor in funding decisions. Rather, it should be embraced as an essential and exciting aspect of discovery. Many significant scientific contributions were unforeseen at the outset of their research paths.
- Case studies, such as research into molds leading to antibiotics, highlight the potential of unexpected results. - Embracing unpredictability encourages a more dynamic and agile approach to scientific exploration, promising innovation and progress.
Legislative Decision-Making
Legislators play a crucial role in determining which research projects receive funding. Their decisions can significantly impact the direction and progress of scientific inquiry. It is essential for legislative bodies to appreciate the unpredictable nature of scientific research when making funding decisions.
- True innovation often stems from research without guaranteed outcomes, necessitating a forward-thinking approach from legislators. - Legislators must balance economic concerns with the potential social and public benefits of funding scientific research.
By supporting research even without assured results, legislators nurture a fertile ground for discoveries that could yield substantial contributions to public welfare. Implementing policies that appreciate the intrinsic uncertainty of research could lead to significant, positive societal change.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Our tomato soup provides good nutrition: for instance, a warm bowl of it contains more units of vitamin \(C\) than does a serving of apricots or fresh carrots! The advertisement is misleading if which one of the following is true? (A) Few people depend exclusively on apricots and carrots to supply vitamin \(C\) to their diets. (B) A liquid can lose vitamins if it stands in contact with the air for a protracted period of time. (C) Tomato soup contains important nutrients other than vitamin \(C\). (D) The amount of vitamin \(\mathrm{C}\) provided by a serving of the advertised soup is less than the amount furnished by a serving of fresh strawberries. (E) Apricots and fresh carrots are widely known to be nutritious, but their contribution consists primarily in providing a large amount of vita\(\min A\), not a large amount of vitamin \(C\).

Which one of the following principles, if established, would determine that demolishing the houses was the right decision or instead would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted? (A) When what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, the course of action that would result in the most housing for people who need it should be the one adopted unless the building is believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety. (B) When there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted. (C) If one of two proposals for renovating vacant neighborhood buildings requires government funding whereas the second does not, the second proposal should be the one adopted unless the necessary government funds have already been secured. (D) No plan for eliminating a neighborhood problem that requires demolishing basically sound houses should be carried out until all other possible alternatives have been thoroughly investigated. (E) No proposal for dealing with a threat to a neighborhood's safety should be adopted merely because a majority of the residents of that neighborhood prefer that proposal to a particular counterproposal.

No mathematician today would flatly refuse to accept the results of an enormous computation as an adequate demonstration of the truth of a theorem. In 1976 , however, this was not the case. Some mathematicians at that time refused to accept the results of a complex computer demonstration of a very simple mapping theorem. Although some mathematicians still hold a strong belief that a simple theorem ought to have a short, simple proof, in fact, some simple theorems have required enormous proofs. If all of the statements in the passage are true, which one of the following must also be true? (A) Today, some mathematicians who believe that a simple theorem ought to have a simple proof would consider accepting the results of an enormous computation as a demonstration of the truth of a theorem. (B) Some individuals who believe that a simple theorem ought to have a simple proof are not mathematicians. (C) Today, some individuals who refuse to accept the results of an enormous computation as a demonstration of the truth of a theorem believe that a simple theorem ought to have a simple proof. (D) Some individuals who do not believe that a simple theorem ought to have a simple proof would not be willing to accept the results of an enormous computation as proof of a complex theorem. (E) Some nonmathematicians do not believe that a simple theorem ought to have a simple proof.

There is a widespread belief that people can predict impending earthquakes from unusual animal behavior. Skeptics claim that this belief is based on selective coincidence: people whose dogs behaved oddly just before an earthquake will be especially likely to remember that fact. At any given time, the skeptics say, some of the world's doss will be behaving oddly. Clarification of which one of the following issues would be most important to an evaluation of the skeptics' position? (A) Which is larger, the number of skeptics or the number of people who believe that animal behavior can foreshadow earthquakes? (B) Are there means other than the observation of animal behavior that nonscientists can use to predict earthquakes? (C) Are there animals about whose behavior people know too little to be able to distinguish unusual from everyday behavior? (D) Are the sorts of behavior supposedly predictive of earthquakes as pronounced in dogs as they are in other animals? (E) Is the animal behavior supposedly predictive of earthquakes specific to impending earthquakes or can it be any kind of unusual behavior?

Although all birds have feathers and all birds have wings, some birds do not fly. For example, penguins and ostriches use their wings to move in a different way from other birds. Penguins use their wings only to swim under water at high speeds. Ostriches use their wings only to run with the wind by lifting them as if they were sails. Which one of the following is most parallel in its reasoning to the argument above? (A) Ancient philosophers tried to explain not how the world functions but why it functions. In contrast, most contemporary biologists seek comprehensive theories of how organisms function, but many refuse to speculate about purpose. (B) Some chairs are used only as decorations, and other chairs are used only to tame lions. Therefore, not all chairs are used for sitting in spite of the fact that all chairs have a seat and some support such as legs. (C) Some musicians in a symphony orchestra play the violin, and others play the viola, but these are both in the same category of musical instruments, namely string instruments. (D) All cars have similar drive mechanisms, but some cars derive their power from solar energy, whereas others burn gasoline. Thus, solar-powered cars are less efficient than gasoline-powered ones. (E) Sailing ships move in a different way from steamships. Both sailing ships and steamships navigate over water, but only sailing ships use sails to move over the surface.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on English Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free