Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardStructural Integration of Counterarguments & Rebuttals

Consider the following draft excerpt from a body paragraph addressing whether public institutions should prioritize applied technological research over foundational scientific inquiry:

"Advocates for prioritizing applied research argue that public funds must deliver immediate, tangible returns, such as scalable clean energy devices or targeted medical therapies. Opponents of this focus contend that foundational scientific inquiry has historically yielded unpredictable, groundbreaking innovations, citing quantum mechanics as an indispensable precursor to modern microprocessors. While foundational research is certainly valuable, governments face acute fiscal deficits. Therefore, public funding should be allocated almost entirely to applied projects to meet pressing societal needs."

Which of the following structural revisions best integrates the counterargument and rebuttal to create a cohesive line of reasoning without weakening the author's primary thesis?

  1. A
    Retain the mention of foundational research's historical breakthroughs, but follow it immediately with a blanket assertion that past scientific history is irrelevant to modern economic crises, thereby discarding the opposing viewpoint before restating the main thesis.
  2. B
    Move the discussion of foundational research and quantum mechanics into an isolated paragraph at the end of the essay without connecting transitions, allowing the primary body paragraph to maintain an exclusive focus on applied research.
  3. Explicitly concede the transformative potential of foundational inquiry via a concessionary transition, pivot to demonstrate that applied development is the necessary mechanism through which foundational discoveries achieve practical utility, and synthesize this relationship to justify calibrated funding prioritization.Answer
  4. D
    Eliminate the reference to government fiscal deficits and assert that applied research is the only scientific domain capable of generating societal value, avoiding any recognition of alternative viewpoints.
  5. E
    Fully accept the opposing premise that foundational inquiry is inherently superior to applied research in all contexts, while continuing to advocate for applied funding in the conclusion without reconciling the contradiction.

Answer

The optimal structural revision explicitly concedes the transformative potential of foundational inquiry via a concessionary transition, pivots to demonstrate that applied development is the necessary mechanism through which foundational discoveries achieve practical utility, and synthesizes this relationship to justify calibrated funding prioritization.
The correct response identifies a revision that respects the complexity of the prompt by framing the opposing viewpoint (foundational research breakthroughs) as a valid concession, using a clear transitional pivot to show that applied research acts as the catalyst bringing foundational science to fruition, and synthesizing this dynamic to reinforce the main thesis.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structural defect in the original paragraph excerpt.
The original text acknowledges a major counterargument (unpredictable breakthroughs from foundational science) but abruptly dismisses it with a superficial reliance on 'fiscal deficits' without logically refuting or accommodating the premise.
Effective GRE Analytical Writing requires counterarguments to be integrated through logical synthesis or substantive rebuttal rather than superficial dismissal.
2
Evaluate candidate structural revisions against GRE Analytical Writing integration criteria.
The revision that establishes a concessionary bridge, introduces a logical pivot connecting foundational science to applied realization, and uses that relationship to justify the author's stance creates seamless argumentation.
Integrating a counterargument requires demonstrating how the primary thesis holds true *in light of* or *in conjunction with* the opposing evidence.
3
Verify that wrong options exhibit recognized structural flaws from the error taxonomy.
Dismissing the counterargument outright, isolating it in a separate disconnected paragraph, taking an absolutist stance, or accepting contradictory premises represent clear structural and rhetorical failures.
These flawed choices correspond directly to established errors such as dismissive counterargument handling, tacked-on counterarguments, and absolutist framing.

Key Concept

Structural Integration of Counterarguments & Rebuttals
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Structural Integration of Counterarguments & Rebuttals

More questions from this topic