0

The following only involves certain paragraphs here: everything under the heading The Challenge (but nothing aout the picture) and the first two paragraphs under The Enterprise. See question 11 here.

(a) CORRECT. In talking about the strategic plan, the writer begins by offering praise: ‘The scientifi c strategic plan of the Enterprise is spot- on in identifying the major roadblocks in HIV vaccine development, as well as in establishing the key scientifi c priorities as we see them today.’ He then goes on to consider whether there are any potential downsides to the plan by looking at its limitations. These two components make up a substantial part of the article, and the majority of the other material is ancillary to them. Taken together, these suggest that his purpose is neither solely to attack nor defend the plan, but rather to indicate that it may not be the only solution.
(d), (e) INCORRECT. See (a).

  1. Why's (e) wrong? The first paragraph under The Enterprise states that the 'plan...is spot-on'. The second right under the first, discusses 'potential downsides'. Yet overall, isn't the author's view of the plan 'good'?
  2. Where does the passage even imply the italicised? Isn't this overinterpreting and overreading?
2
  • Why's (e) wrong? The first paragraph under The Enterprise states that the 'plan...is spot-on'. The second right under the first, discusses 'potential downsides'. Yet overall, isn't the author's view of the plan 'good'?

The spot-on part should not be taken out of context:

in identifying the major roadblocks in HIV vaccine development, as well as in establishing the key scientific priorities as we see them today.

That means "hey, they're not crazy, they know what they are doing." That does not mean "what they are doing is a great idea!" If I write "in his attempt to quickly kill the victim, the murderer was spot-on in identifying the main arteries to sever", my use of spot-on does not mean I think he did a good thing!

Overall, the author describes that "The Enterprise" seems to know what they are doing, but he mentions a number of risks that he deems very high and important. From those, I would not conclude that he would ever commit to a black/white opinion about the plan being "good" or "bad". This paragraph shows the author's reserve towards the idea:

It is my contention that great new ideas are as likely to come from curiosity-driven basic studies as from the mission-oriented approach that is represented by the new proposal. Therefore, the leadership of the Enterprise must safeguard against the kind of “group think” that is so pervasive in large collaborative endeavors of this nature. The views of a small number of researchers, no matter how smart or accomplished, must not supersede the collective wisdom of the scientific community at large.

He does not call it a bad idea, but he certainly is not all-positive about it!

  • Where does the passage even imply the italicised? Isn't this overinterpreting and overreading?

I would call it more than imply:

It is my contention that great new ideas are as likely to come from curiosity-driven basic studies as from the mission-oriented approach that is represented by the new proposal.

Literally states the author's position that a solution can comes from elsewhere than from this new idea. And it is exactly that point that raises his major concerns. So I do not think it is overreading.

(quotes taken from the PLOS medicine link provided in the question )

1
  • +1. Thank you effusively for your continual care. Please maintain your superlative contributions and beneficence, which I cherish. How I wish that I had your wisdom and expertise in English for this test! – NNOX Apps Sep 18 '14 at 14:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.