Atypical Assumption question

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

This is a question from Kaplan.

Source : http://www.beatthegmat.com/toughest-cr- ... 15737.html

Question (I don't think that it's copyrighted)

Through their selective funding of research projects, pharmaceutical companies exert too much influence upon medical research in universities. Only research proposals promising lucrative results are given serious consideration, and funding is usually awarded to scientists at large institutions who already have vast research experience. As a result, only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities, and graduate students will learn that their future research must conform to the expectations of the corporation. Research will continue to be conducted at the expense of human welfare.

Which of the following reactions of a pharmaceutical company representative would provide the strongest rebuttal to the comments above?

Many of the research projects funded by pharmaceutical companies do not end up being lucrative.

Much of the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies goes to fellowships that help pay for the education of graduate students.

If it were not for the funds which pharmaceutical companies provide, very little medical research could be conducted at all.

The committee members fail to discuss other methods of funding research projects.

Larger universities are the only ones equipped to conduct the kind of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

OA - C

I am not sure about E

Here's my analysis:

The conclusion is : Research will continue to be conducted at the cost of human welfare. The author provides a bunch of evidences : only large universities will be able to conduct the research; students' research will conform to the expectations of the companies.

"Lucrative research" and "availability of researchers in large institutions" are evidences used to arrive at an intermediate conclusion "only larger universities will be able to continue developing adequate research facilities", which in turn is used as an evidence for the main conclusion.

If E) is incorrect, then it is equivalent to say that the evidence, "lucrative research" and "experience of scientists", supports the main conclusion that research will be conducted at the cost of human welfare would be to skip the intermediate conclusion. Isn't it? The author acknowledges that ONLY larger universities are supporting the research by using a very strong word "ONLY."

However, if only large univ are the ones that CAN conduct the research, isn't the argument against companies weakened? Another point could be made that the author assumes that the expectations of the companies don't comply with human welfare. However, both the statements will equally kill the argument.

thoughts?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

It's amazing to see how different a non LSAT question feels even though its supposed to be testing the same skills. Honestly, I've been working on the LSAT for 10 years, and this question seems very poorly written. It lacks traditional language cues that provide a roadmap for what the argument is trying to accomplish.

The first sentence is the argument's main conclusion - that pharmaceutical companies exert too much influence. Why? Because they drive research money into lucrative and well established facilities with researchers who have lots of experience.

Answer choice (C) undermines this argument by suggesting that pharmaceutical companies do not have too much influence, because without their funding, almost no research would be conducted. At least with their funding, there is some research being conducted.

Incorrect Answers

(A) is irrelevant because it could be the case that pharmaceutical companies thought the research would be lucrative before they invested in it.
(B) is irrelevant because the term "much" is simply unspecified and means "some." This is consistent with the original argument that graduate students will learn that their success is dependent on the pharmaceutical companies continuing to fund their careers.
(D) is true, but that doesn't mean that there is actually enough alternative funding to suggest that pharmaceutical companies do not have undue influence.
(E) supports the argument that it is the larger institutions that will continue to get the support from pharmaceutical companies. How would this undermine the conclusion that pharmaceutical companies possess too much influence in the research process?