The author supports the opinion of a Nobel Prize co-winner, James Watson,

that National Institute of Health should allocate funding only to elite scientist
rather than spread it with the second and third rate institution too This
opinion is bac!ed up with some assumptions that still ha"e some #aws
Therefore, to ma!e the argument "alid there are some $uestions that need to
be e"aluated
To begin with, the author mentions that today alzheimer has became a
burden disease for a nation It is not only causing much su%ering and pain for
the patient, but also ban!rupting the country This assumption that
mentioned by the author is not including a speci&c e"idences according to
the seriousity of the disease What is the proportion of the e%ect of the
disease compared to another diseases' If there is some reasearch or data
that include the comparison of those disease, then the author can support
the proposed argument Howe"er, if the data mention sate that other
diseases has more e%ect than alzheimer, then the suggested opinion is not
"alid
(nother assumption that needs to be e"aluated is regarding to the
!nowledge ad"ancement of the research The author writes that if the
allocation of funding only focus to elite scientist, then the !nowledge
ad"ancement of particular disease will increase signi&cantly This assumption
is considered as wea! beacuse it is not supported by particular e"idence The
author again, does not mention any comparation between the ad"ancement
of only elite research and combination of elite and other institution If there is
some e"idences that mention if there is a collaboration between elites,
second, and third-rate institutions lead a more rapid ad"ances, then the
proposed argument is considered as unwarrant
The last assumption is based on Watson)s prediction regarding the after math
that that policy then will bring ad"ancement in &nding the cure for cancer
This assumption is not supported by another e"idences or research and
prediction by other scientists Watson)s prediction can be wrong because
there is no scienti&c record that presented to support the opinion Therefore,
with this lac! supporting statement, the suggested argument is still
uncon"incing to be implemented
(ll in all, the suggested opinion that con&rm the argument of a scientist
based on the writing is uncon"incing This statement is supported by fact that
there are lac! of e"idences in the passage which has not been mentioned by
the author