Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (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 by charlies1902

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use