Char123 Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 (edited) I'm looking through every issue prompt to ensure that nothing is completely foreign to me. I came across an issue statement and had some trouble dissecting what it's contending. The issue is: Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application. Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty I understand the claim that "researchers should not only pursue areas that may lead to immediate, practical applications." But the reason part is a bit ambiguous. I don't get how they're even supporting the claim with the reason that "the outcome of research is unpredictable." If I didn't know better, I'd assume they're asserting that "researches should not only pursue areas that may lead to immediate applications BECAUSE the outcome is unpredictable." I really don't see the relevance in the reasoning behind the claim nor can I see this reasoning used for other claims. It just seems the reason in this issue is largely irrelevant. Also, when it gives you a claim and reason and asks you whether you agree/disagree with the claim AND the reason, is it strange/contradictory to disagree with the claim, but agree with the reason? I sometimes find myself disagreeing with the claim, but not the reason. Edited October 27, 2013 by charlies1902
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now