Explanation
A. (Correct Response) Varela contends that Pulford's argument makes an untenable distinction between 'legitimate scientific inquiry' and 'mere curiosity.' By stating that curiosity itself can lead to significant scientific findings, Varela challenges the premise that curiosity and legitimate scientific inquiry are separate and that only the latter is justifiable.
B. Varela is not disputing a specific principle stated by Pulford but rather challenging the assumption that curiosity is not a legitimate motivator for scientific investigation.
C. While Varela does mention historical occurrences where curiosity led to discoveries, he is not providing a counterexample to a generalization; he is challenging the fundamental distinction Pulford makes.
D. Varela is not attempting to draw a new distinction; he is arguing against the division Pulford suggests.
E. Varela does not claim that Pulford's premises are inconsistent; he challenges the underlying assumption that separates curiosity from legitimate scientific inquiry.
Varela's response directly challenges the distinction Pulford makes between curiosity-driven research and research aimed at advancing scientific knowledge, suggesting that this distinction is false because curiosity can and has led to the advancement of scientific knowledge. This makes option A the correct answer.