Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumPrinciple Questions

Under the Bioethics Research Alliance's guidelines, investigators whose clinical trials fail to confirm a proposed therapeutic benefit must make all underlying raw assay data publicly accessible prior to applying for subsequent alliance funding. Dr. Vane's team recently concluded a trial showing that an experimental peptide lacked efficacy for its targeted metabolic disorder. Although Dr. Vane archived the negative findings within her institution's private database, she submitted a new funding proposal to the alliance without publishing the raw assay data. Thus, the alliance's review board acted properly in denying Dr. Vane's funding proposal.

The argument's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following principles is assumed?

  1. A
    Scientific research organizations should refuse to award grants to any clinical project that stores experimental data in private institutional repositories rather than open-access archives.
  2. B
    An oversight board is justified in denying a funding proposal only when the applicant's prior research has been shown to lack methodological rigor.
  3. A grant review board acts properly in rejecting an investigator's funding proposal if that investigator has sought funding without fulfilling mandatory disclosure requirements.Answer
  4. D
    Any research team that fails to demonstrate the therapeutic efficacy of an experimental treatment should be permanently disqualified from obtaining public research grants.
  5. E
    A funding body is required to approve a researcher's grant proposal whenever the researcher has fully archived trial findings within an accredited institutional database.

Answer

A grant review board acts properly in rejecting an investigator's funding proposal if that investigator has sought funding without fulfilling mandatory disclosure requirements.
The correct answer provides a conditional rule whose antecedent is met by the facts in the stimulus (seeking funding without satisfying mandatory disclosure obligations) and whose consequent directly delivers the argument's conclusion (the review board acts properly in rejecting the proposal). Because Dr. Vane applied for alliance funding without making the raw assay data publicly available, this principle guarantees that the rejection was justified.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Isolate the conclusion and the factual premises of the argument.
Conclusion: The alliance's review board acted properly in denying Dr. Vane's funding proposal. Premise: Dr. Vane applied for new funding without making raw assay data publicly accessible after a negative trial result, violating alliance guidelines.
Principle-Justify questions require identifying the exact gap between the factual trigger (rule breach) and the normative conclusion (action was proper).
2
Identify the logical bridge needed to make the conclusion deductively valid.
The argument requires a general principle stating: If an applicant applies for funding without fulfilling mandatory disclosure preconditions, then the review board is justified in rejecting that application.
The premises show that a violation occurred, but only an overarching normative rule can establish that this violation constitutes sufficient grounds for proposal rejection.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to identify the statement that provides this sufficient condition without scope distortions or illegal reversals.
The statement specifying that a grant review board acts properly in rejecting a proposal when the applicant fails to fulfill mandatory disclosure requirements perfectly bridges the premise to the conclusion.
This establishes a sufficient condition that is completely triggered by Dr. Vane's actions, guaranteeing that the board acted properly.

Key Concept

Sufficient Principle Justification in Deductive Reasoning
Estimated Time:1m 20s
Rate this question

Topics

Principle Questions

More questions from this topic