Hey Everyone,
Got this question right when I did this initially, but having a tough time ruling out answer (D). I know at first glance it seems out of scope, but here's my reasoning why (D) could be right. If all scientific investigators don't receive any grants for which they apply (negation), then it' s possible they face no restrictions (ignoring anything that doesn't directly bear on the funded research), and therefore serendipity can still play a role. I know (D) sounds far-retched, but why can't it be a NA?
I know I've gone wrong somewhere and I'd appreciate if anyone can help me out. Thanks!
PT7, S1, Q24- Forum
-
RZ5646
- Posts: 2391
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 1:31 pm
Re: PT7, S1, Q24-
Because everyone is "heavily dependent" on the grants, if no one gets a grant, then there are no discoveries at all, serendipitous or otherwise. They face no restrictions, but they can't conduct research either. You'd have to assume that there are other researchers who aren't beholden to the grant-givers, which is being too imaginative.
-
179orBust
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:57 am
Re: PT7, S1, Q24-
Great explanation. That's exactly what I was assuming, but I didn't consider that assumption to be too imaginative at the time. Guess I was wrong. Thanks a ton for your help, makes this question a lot clearer.RZ5646 wrote:Because everyone is "heavily dependent" on the grants, if no one gets a grant, then there are no discoveries at all, serendipitous or otherwise. They face no restrictions, but they can't conduct research either. You'd have to assume that there are other researchers who aren't beholden to the grant-givers, which is being too imaginative.
