Hi
Prateek1793Quote:
For Choice A, "Whether among those scientists who do highly creative work beyond age forty a large proportion entered their field at a considerably later age than is common", think what if the number of scientists entering this creative field is not a large proportion. Will the conclusion by the author still hold true? That is, what if we say that only a few scientists entered the creative field at a later stage, then the conclusion, "spending too long in a single field reduces the opportunity for creative thought." breaks down.
I feel like your reasoning is not quite right.
The proportion of scientists who enter the field does not matter. What matters is at what time in their career are they entering the field and are they creative or not.
The fact that a large proportion of scientists who entered their field at a considerably later age means they have comparatively less experience in that field and are creative people.
-So if this fact is true, this strengthens the conclusion that indeed scientists who stayed long in their respective field are less creative.
-But if this fact is not true, then that means scientists who have lesser experience as well have less creativity, then this fact casts a doubt on the conclusion. We will start thinking that there must be some other factor that is causing reduced creativity.
The fact that If only a few scientists entered the creative field at a later stage without the information at what point in their career they entered does not impact the conclusion at all.
Anyway these are my thoughts. We can discuss if I am wrong.