Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical companies exert too much influence upon medical research in universities. Only research proposals promising lucrative results are given serious consideration, and funding is usually awarded to scientists at large institutions who already have vast research experience. As a result, only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities, and graduate students will learn that their future research must conform to the expectations of the corporation. Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare.
Which of the following reactions of a pharmaceutical company representative would provide the strongest rebuttal to the comments above?
Many of the research projects funded by pharmaceutical companies do not end up being lucrative.
Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowship that help pay of the education of graduate students.
If it were not for the funds which pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.!
The committee members fail to discuss other methods of funding research projects.
Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
这个题，我看来看去，觉得很多选项都像答案，SIGH~~~~~~。谁能给一个明确的方向？
要反驳的结论究竟是什么？作者: tongxun 时间: 2002-11-27 20:37
Many of the research projects funded by pharmaceutical companies do not end up being lucrative.
这是个无关选项。结果怎样与资不资助无关，也许一开始这些药厂认为是lucrative而资助的呢？
Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowship that help pay of the education of graduate students.
这个选项较好，因为它说明药厂不是主要资助proposals promising lucrative results 的
If it were not for the funds which pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.!
这个是支持批评者的言论的
The committee members fail to discuss other methods of funding research projects.
这个选项无关
Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
这个支持批评者的言论作者: lala 时间: 2002-11-28 17:16
Unfortunately, the answer is C, not B.作者: iamf 时间: 2002-11-29 00:51
我也认为B可能相对恰当，不知道这个是哪里的题？
如果是C的话可能可以这样理解：如果没有公司的帮助，基本上的试验都无法实施。言下之意就是说公司的资金支持是主要用以反驳at the expense of human walfare。因为这种帮助使得人类福利增加而不是有损福利。
答案B可以反驳大学将这些资金用于研发，其实他们用于奖学金。
我认为最好的答案是用于反驳as a result后面的结论的。可是五个答案都没有提供。实际上将资金用于研发并不是上述这段话的结论，有损福利可以认为是结论之一。
The answer b certainly is wrong. Please pay attention to these words "finding of reserch projests" that only indicate those money distributed only for research purpose. Therefore, the funds for anything out of this range is out of the concern of this quesion. Consequently, the funding of fellowship is definately irrelevent to this question.
On the other hand, even we know that many of the funds heads for the awards of fellowship. It says nothing about the direction of those funds for research. Maybe, the rest of money goes handred percent to those lucrative projects. Then....
The main conclusion is that the behavior of pharmaceutical company in distributing funds for only lucrative projects fundamentally goes against the purpose of realizing "human welfare". Thus, we should have to find a answer that explain such action does not contribute negatively to that goal.
Simply from choise C, we know that without P' funds, fewer medical research will be conducted, which means human welfare will recieve fewer benefit from those research. So, the underlying rationale is obvious here. P's find actually promoted the human welfare, right ?
The simplest way to crack down such problem is the exclustion of irrelevent words, such as "fellowship".When you get more practice of LSAT, you will naturallly aquire this habit and find the trick to reach the right answer quickly.
Good luck !作者: tongxun 时间: 2002-11-29 18:47
