mornincounselor wrote:179orBust wrote:PT6, S3, Q15:
Can someone please help me out by explaining why (A) isn't a NA? If even one of their attempts to develop higher-yielding strains was useful, then wouldn't it be fair to assert that they haven't been concerned with only their own research? And if that's the case then why should they be blamed? Just having a tough time ruling this choice out and would appreciate some help!
Edit: Thinking about it now is (A) out of scope because it talks about current attempts?
When I read this stimulus I think "why would these researchers be to blame?" We cannot blame them simply because they failed to devise a new method, we know the previously used methods can be sufficient. Unless we know that previous methods are no longer sufficient then why do we need new methods at all? The gap is in explaining why the researchers should need to (and therefore why them having not done so is blameworthy) develop new methods in the first place.
A. We do not have to assume that any attempts, on their part, would be futile. If we assumed that, then why would we find fault with the researchers in the first place? If the attempts are futile how can we blame them for not succeeding?
B. AHA! If we assumed the previous methods are no longer sufficient this fills our gap.
Thanks, great explanation!