To receive Series A funding from Vantage Ventures, a biotech startup must demonstrate successful Phase I safety trials for its lead drug candidate. BioSphere Therapeutics recently completed its Phase I trials with zero reported adverse events among all trial participants. The company's founders concluded that because they satisfied the firm's mandate by completing Phase I safety trials, Vantage Ventures will definitely approve their application for Series A funding. Which of the following best describes the vulnerability in the founders' reasoning?
- It treats a condition that is necessary for securing funding as though it were sufficient to guarantee that funding.Cevap
- BIt presumes without justification that completing Phase I safety trials causes a drug candidate to perform effectively in Phase II efficacy trials.
- CIt relies on a sample of trial participants that is too small to draw statistically sound conclusions regarding long-term drug safety.
- DIt overlooks the possibility that satisfying Phase I safety requirements actually decreases a startup's likelihood of attracting institutional investors.
- EIt fails to consider whether competing venture capital firms offer more favorable investment terms than Vantage Ventures.
Cevap
The argument incorrectly treats a necessary prerequisite (completing Phase I safety trials) as a sufficient condition that guarantees funding approval.
The passage establishes that completing Phase I safety trials is a requirement (a necessary condition) for receiving Series A funding from Vantage Ventures. However, the founders conclude that meeting this single requirement guarantees funding approval (treating it as a sufficient condition). The argument fails to consider that other necessary conditions, such as commercial viability or valuation agreements, might also need to be satisfied.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions