Professor: Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies and other profit–driven institutions provide nearly all of the fun...

Skylar on December 21, 2019

@nivensdc,

The professor says that if pharmaceutical companies and other for-profits continue to provide nearly all of the funding for the chemistry department's research and no additional funding for basic science research is secured, it is unlikely that advances in basic research will come from the department. It then concludes that the department will not likely gain prestige from basic science achievements without funding from non-profit-driven institutions.

(B) is incorrect because it is not required for the professor's argument to be true. The professor claims funding is required in order for basic science achievements and resulting prestige to follow. However, this answer choice reverses this order as described by the professor and instead makes the claim that funding follows from an increase in prestige (note the use of the word "subsequently"). Also, (B) only refers to "prestige," whereas the professor specific describes "the prestige that only achievements in basic science research confer" in the passage. It is not explicitly clear that this answer choice is referring to the same limited type of prestige.

(D) is correct because, when negated, it makes the professor's argument fall apart. If negated, it states that funding for basic science research is likely to increase if non-profit-driven sources do not increase. This means that the profit-driven institutions must provide increased funding for basic science research, making it possible for advances and prestige to be achieved under the current main funding source. This would be at odds with the passage, so (D) is a required assumption.

Does that make sense? Please reach out with any other questions!