Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 18 Jan 2017, 17:17

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 08 Dec 2010
Posts: 214
WE 1: 4 yr IT
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 26

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

11 Feb 2012, 10:38
i too am stuck between E and D. can someone explain this properly?
IMO E says particle accelerator research which is not same as stimulus which says research involving particle accelerator. and D seems to negate the reason that low availability of accltrs is the cause.
_________________

this time, we play for keeps

Intern
Joined: 07 Jan 2012
Posts: 13
Location: Canada
Concentration: International Business, Entrepreneurship
GMAT Date: 04-30-2012
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 8

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Mar 2012, 13:27
E seems to be the strongest one due to the reasons mentioned in the beginning of this thread. Can we have the OA please?
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 369
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 169 [0], given: 31

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Mar 2012, 22:47
Straight E its the only one making sense here
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If my reply /analysis is helpful-->please press KUDOS
If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

Manager
Joined: 03 Aug 2011
Posts: 241
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.38
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 41 [1] , given: 12

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

21 Mar 2012, 18:03
1
This post received
KUDOS
D- even if particle accelerators can be used by multiple groups, they didn't state how many groups there are and how many particle accelerators there are. perhaps if the ratio changed, then maybe we could consider this, but even in the premises they never excluded the possibility of sharing.

B- this one seemed trickier to exclude.. if the time scientists wait is decreasing, one would assume that it can't be the accelerators being broken causing the lower articles.. ie scientists have even faster access. but what if the fact that the accelerator is broken, many groups don't even bother pursuing their experiment and move onto other things. then they technically have zero wait.

say there are 4 researchers waiting 1 day to use a machine, then say the machines are improved so the researchers only have to wait 1/2 day (ans B), well there are still only 4 articles published, although faster perhaps

with E, if their articles aren't even published, then it shows the wait time has no effect on the number of articles.
Intern
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Sep 2012, 14:31
mysterio wrote:
ankitranjan wrote:
Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle
accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major
research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of
articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist’s argument?
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year
actually was published.
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last
several years.
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that
articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.

OA will be given tomorrow.

If You Like the question Consider KUDOS

conclusion : the decrease in number of publication last year was due to unavailability of particle accelerator.
premise 1/ reason : several particle accelerators were out of service

to weaken this argument/conclusion lets look out for an alternate reason leading to conclusion. this is exactly wht option E does, it shows decrease is due to changes in editorial policies.

I chose B, because B tells us that scientists actually had more availably to the particle accelerators bc of decreased wait time. Shouldn't this weaken the argument? Thanks!
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 08 May 2012
Posts: 51
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47
Followers: 268

Kudos [?]: 316 [2] , given: 4

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Sep 2012, 13:35
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
ankitranjan wrote:
Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle
accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major
research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of
articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist’s argument?
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year
actually was published.
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last
several years.
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that
articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.

OA will be given tomorrow.

If You Like the question Consider KUDOS

My take on this one is pretty similar to the take I had on the Baseball Paradox problem, see baseball-paradox-139713.html#p1126348

The short version is that any time you have a premise that describes some phenomenon and a conclusion that attempts to explain that phenomenon, you should look for alternate explanations.

Since this is a Weaken problem we want an answer that provides one such alternate explanation.

Here, the phenomenon (given as a premise) is that fewer papers were published this year, and some accelerators were down recently. The explanation (conclusion) is that the downtime for the accelerators caused the decrease in published papers. We're looking for an answer choice that would result in a decrease in published papers but has nothing to do with the accelerator down time. Only (E) even comes close to accomplishing this!

The real take-away for this problem (as well as the Baseball Paradox) has nothing to do with the specific problems but rather is about how you should study for Assumptions Family question types on CR. Look for patterns and categories of assumptions and try to generalize everything you do. This will make you much more efficient at brainstorming assumptions and before you know it you'll be accurately predicting most of the correct answers on these problems.

Cheers,
Mark
_________________

Mark Sullivan | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Seattle, WA

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Intern
Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Posts: 21
GMAT 1: Q V
GPA: 4
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 8

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Feb 2013, 19:25
I don't see why D couldn't be chosen. E refers to "recent changes" and says that these recent changes *will* affect publication in the future. However, the prompt is talking about a trend that already happened and refers to events that are 1-2 years old, not recent. Why would a change in editorial policies that occurs after the trend affect the amount of articles published last year?

I think D makes sense because if particle accelerators can be used by multiple people in a year, then scientists who would have used the now-broken accelerators can now double up on the working ones. This means that there is not a decline in availability of particle accelerators, so the decrease in articles would have had to come from another source.

Can anyone explain this? The OG guide and the MGMAT video explanation don't even address these concerns.
Director
Status: My Thread Master Bschool Threads-->Krannert(Purdue),WP Carey(Arizona),Foster(Uwashngton)
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
Posts: 894
Followers: 89

Kudos [?]: 220 [0], given: 57

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Sep 2013, 08:05
nonameee wrote:
For those who are interested, here's why (D) is a wrong answer:

The effect: There were fewer articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators.

The stated cause (the one we should attack): Some accelerators were unavailable for research.

To refute the cause and effect relationship we need to, for example, find an alternative cause.

(D) doesn't accomplish this because had it been true that other functioning accelerators were available for multiple experiments, the effect would have never occurred in the first place. Well of course if those accelerators hadn't been already used at their full capacities. But even if that were the case, (D) still wouldn't be a great alternative cause of the decline in the number of published articles.

(E) provides an alternative explanation of the stated effect.

The only thing that still bothers me is the word 'lately' in (E). But all in all (E) is a clear winner now.

I also got stuck between D and E, chose D.

"The journalist assumes that lack of access to accelerators is the main reason..."

Undermining this statement option D correctly points out that there cant be any shortage because it can be shared by more than one group....So the reason of declining is something else....
_________________
Intern
Joined: 08 May 2014
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 May 2014, 10:54
Hi!

Can someone pls explain why the correct answer is not D.

I thought if these accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments then the lack of these accelerators cannot be seen as a reason for the decline of these articles. And that is clearly a flaw in the argument.
Intern
Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 May 2014, 01:40
I really loved the shared information.... Its very helpful for me.... Thanks for sharing.
Current Student
Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 186
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 120

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Sep 2014, 04:00
Alternate reason for the effect. Hence E weakens the conclusion
_________________

Consider +1 Kudos Please

Intern
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
Posts: 38
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 46

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Sep 2014, 07:16
E is defenitely the strongest answer.....except for "recent".
In my opinion, in this particular questions "recent" should stand for last month, maybe a month before last.

Of course, "recent" is a relative notion.

If we speak, for example, about a ten years period - then "recent" would mean, say, last year or a year before last. I think this is logical.

But is we speak about a two years period (as in the question), I think "recent" is totally unacceptable to identify the period at some point of time between a year before last and a last year.
Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 153
Concentration: Finance, Finance
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 156

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Nov 2014, 21:24
I don't understand why A is eliminated.
To me A says there is no problem in the publication for particle accelerators. Actually no of submission was few so the publication is. There is nothing to do with the accelerator issue.

I understand Why E is answer. I need explanation for A
Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 608
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 266 [1] , given: 200

Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Feb 2015, 07:50
1
This post received
KUDOS
suyash wrote:
What's wrong with D.
Both D and E are equal contenders.Both of them are weakning the argument in their own ways
D is weakening the argument by stating that
"Although the effect occurs, the cause was not the reason for the occurence of the effect"

E is weakening the argument by stating that
"The stated cause was not the reason that the effect occured"

How do you break the tie between the two, as both of them qualify equally in weakening the argument.
I find D more appealing in that, E mentions the word recent, which may mean different for different people.
It may mean this year, or it may mean previous 5 years. Who knows ?

Somebody kindly enlighten.

I had also to chose between E&D - I've picked E, because it states an alternative Reason. But I found D is also weakening the argument. I saw your explanation for D and actually at the point realised why D is wrong.

Although the effect occurs, the cause was not the reason for the occurence of the effect the fact is that the effect doesn't occur -->> if 1 accelerator can be used multiple times than you won't have a drop in the number of articles - the effect did not take place in this construcition + the argument is not weakened it just don't exist after D - we don't have neither the effect nor the cause (the availability didn't fall if they can be used mupltiple time)

Explantion from a GMAT Expert on the beatthegmat: The problem with D is that it doesn't address the essence of the problem, which is the difference between this year and previous years.

As stated, D is something that is true for accelerators in general-and that thus has always been true, both in previous years and now. So, it can't explain a difference between this year and previous years.

Update 16.04.15
Second try - had to struggle between B and E:
According to the CR Bible B is wrong:

Structire: Low availability (CAUSE) --> (EFFECT) Low # of articles
Answer B) Says that the availability have not declined - Cause doesn't oocur, so does the effect (if we have a better availability of the accelerators, then the # of articles must also be high)
--> This destroys the whole argument.

A) Find an alternative clause - is not the case here (E plays this role)
B) If cause occurs, the effect doesn't occur - is not the case here
C) Effect occurs, cause did not occur - is not the case here
D) Reversed relationship - is not the case here
E) Statistical problem - is not the case here
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

Share some Kudos, if my posts help you. Thank you !

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Intern
Joined: 12 Jul 2015
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Jul 2015, 15:03
BrainLab wrote:
suyash wrote:
What's wrong with D.
Both D and E are equal contenders.Both of them are weakning the argument in their own ways
D is weakening the argument by stating that
"Although the effect occurs, the cause was not the reason for the occurence of the effect"

E is weakening the argument by stating that
"The stated cause was not the reason that the effect occured"

How do you break the tie between the two, as both of them qualify equally in weakening the argument.
I find D more appealing in that, E mentions the word recent, which may mean different for different people.
It may mean this year, or it may mean previous 5 years. Who knows ?

Somebody kindly enlighten.

I had also to chose between E&D - I've picked E, because it states an alternative Reason. But I found D is also weakening the argument. I saw your explanation for D and actually at the point realised why D is wrong.

Although the effect occurs, the cause was not the reason for the occurence of the effect the fact is that the effect doesn't occur -->> if 1 accelerator can be used multiple times than you won't have a drop in the number of articles - the effect did not take place in this construcition + the argument is not weakened it just don't exist after D - we don't have neither the effect nor the cause (the availability didn't fall if they can be used mupltiple time)

Explantion from a GMAT Expert on the beatthegmat: The problem with D is that it doesn't address the essence of the problem, which is the difference between this year and previous years.

As stated, D is something that is true for accelerators in general-and that thus has always been true, both in previous years and now. So, it can't explain a difference between this year and previous years.

Update 16.04.15
Second try - had to struggle between B and E:
According to the CR Bible B is wrong:

Structire: Low availability (CAUSE) --> (EFFECT) Low # of articles
Answer B) Says that the availability have not declined - Cause doesn't oocur, so does the effect (if we have a better availability of the accelerators, then the # of articles must also be high)
--> This destroys the whole argument.

A) Find an alternative clause - is not the case here (E plays this role)
B) If cause occurs, the effect doesn't occur - is not the case here
C) Effect occurs, cause did not occur - is not the case here
D) Reversed relationship - is not the case here
E) Statistical problem - is not the case here

I disagree with your explanation against D. I personally think this question has some serious problem as D and E could go hand in hand or work separately (just like option D in data sufficiency). D doesn't have to address the difference over years. D only needs to prove that the argument presented didn't address the difference.

Very simply to explain why i think D works - journalist's argument: number of machines (cause 1) influences machine availability (effect 1 AND cause 2), which influences # of articles (effect 2). Option D says: nope, number of machines (cause 1) DOESNT influence machine availability (effect 1 AND cause 2), and certainly is not the reason for effect 2.

Just finger crossed and hope I don't get this kind of shitty question in a real test because it makes me wanna argue with someone on the spot.
Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2013
Posts: 13
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 5

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Mar 2016, 10:14
Straight E.

Marking out D as :
1) Not sufficient info given.
2) Even though if 1 PA could be used for multiple experiments and in that case no of articles would be same or could be more, but that doesn't meet with the argument , which already states that no of articles have decreased.
3) Cause->Effect relation still hold true. No affect on the co-orleation wrt to this option
Intern
Joined: 05 Mar 2016
Posts: 9
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Schools: Imperial '18
GMAT 1: Q V
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 35

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Mar 2016, 13:08
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that
articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.

So, it was not due to the fact that we had less particle accelerators but because of change in
the policy that the number of artiles were decreased. Statement E clearly explain the alternate cause for the stated effect.

i will go for E.
_________________

Please press 1 kudos if you like my post .Thanks

Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 656
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Followers: 49

Kudos [?]: 199 [1] , given: 36

Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Jul 2016, 01:19
1
This post received
KUDOS
THE CORRECT ANSWER IS E

Consider this analogy
Last summer hundreds of parrot regularly flew from nearby jungle and came to your garden to drink water from the water-fountain you installed in the corner of the garden
This summer no parrot came to drink water from your water-fountain
Wrong conclusion :- All parrots must be dead thats why they are not coming to drink water.
Right conclusion :- Last year due to draught and no rainfall, the river inside the jungle was dry. This year the river is full of water because of excess rainfall and cooler temperature.

Similarly:- Last year all particle accelerator were not out of service. They were working and lots of experiment were happening and lots of those articles were submitted to journal.
Then why were there less articles about particle physics journals. Because despite being submitted they were not published.
Why were the not published .. because new policies have limited the total number of such articles that can be published.

(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.

ankitranjan wrote:
Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle
accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major
research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of
articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist’s argument?
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year
actually was published.
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last
several years.
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that
articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.

OA will be given tomorrow.

If You Like the question Consider KUDOS

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016.

Manager
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 200
Location: Brazil
GMAT 1: 470 Q30 V20
GMAT 2: 480 Q33 V22
GMAT 3: 550 Q44 V28
GMAT 4: 630 Q44 V33
GMAT 5: 600 Q43 V33
GMAT 6: 620 Q42 V34
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 37 [1] , given: 132

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Aug 2016, 09:47
1
This post received
KUDOS
I disagree with "irrelevant reason" for dropping an answer choice, there must be an especially when we are talking about a couple of grants dollars cost per question from ACT.

Therefore, for every single option, there is a reasoning behind it and somehow it weakens the argument. The point is, which option is fallacy-free, or in other words, which option ALWAYS weaken the argument.

Stem's Conclusion: The low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
What happened? Particle accelerators out of service
What happened? #'s of articles was lower last year than it had been in previous years

Always bearing this conjuncture above in mind, I tackle the options

Quote:
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year was published.
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last
several years.
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that
articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.

the reasoning behind each option should be ALWAYS clear.

What are the features that the test maker want me to believe in each of the option?

(A) all submissions published
The test makers want to convince me that a lower number of articles is result from the scarcity of content from the maintenance/shutdown of particle accelerators. However, scientists can submit new research using same data from before the shutdown. Therefore, the same amount of articles is kept, and the given reason cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

B) Less wait to access the accelerator
The test taker thinks that the fewer scientists wait, the more experiments they do. So, who guarantees that more experiments = more publications? It may be true or not. It can weaken or strengthen the argument, therefore cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

(C) The number of journals remains unchanged
The test taker thinks that less publication can be affected by the amount of journals available. The idea could be valid unless we presuppose that journals always publish a limited amount of article. Not always weaken the argument, therefore cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

(D) more than one group use the accelerator in any given year.
The test taker thinks that analysis takes an entire year, even if that is true, other publications with data with other years or conjoint or whatever cannot be published, which is a lie. Therefore cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

(E) Editorial policies changes of those that publish decreased the likelihood of publication
The test taker assures that the low-end of the publication chain will close the tap, which is a good reason to believe
ALWAYS weaken the argument
Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 170
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 23

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Sep 2016, 05:34
felippemed wrote:
I disagree with "irrelevant reason" for dropping an answer choice, there must be an especially when we are talking about a couple of grants dollars cost per question from ACT.

Therefore, for every single option, there is a reasoning behind it and somehow it weakens the argument. The point is, which option is fallacy-free, or in other words, which option ALWAYS weaken the argument.

Stem's Conclusion: The low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
What happened? Particle accelerators out of service
What happened? #'s of articles was lower last year than it had been in previous years

Always bearing this conjuncture above in mind, I tackle the options

Quote:
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year was published.
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last
several years.
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that
articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.

the reasoning behind each option should be ALWAYS clear.

What are the features that the test maker want me to believe in each of the option?

(A) all submissions published
The test makers want to convince me that a lower number of articles is result from the scarcity of content from the maintenance/shutdown of particle accelerators. However, scientists can submit new research using same data from before the shutdown. Therefore, the same amount of articles is kept, and the given reason cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

B) Less wait to access the accelerator
The test taker thinks that the fewer scientists wait, the more experiments they do. So, who guarantees that more experiments = more publications? It may be true or not. It can weaken or strengthen the argument, therefore cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

(C) The number of journals remains unchanged
The test taker thinks that less publication can be affected by the amount of journals available. The idea could be valid unless we presuppose that journals always publish a limited amount of article. Not always weaken the argument, therefore cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

(D) more than one group use the accelerator in any given year.
The test taker thinks that analysis takes an entire year, even if that is true, other publications with data with other years or conjoint or whatever cannot be published, which is a lie. Therefore cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

(E) Editorial policies changes of those that publish decreased the likelihood of publication
The test taker assures that the low-end of the publication chain will close the tap, which is a good reason to believe
ALWAYS weaken the argument

same side with you.
I disagree irrelevant explanation.

my GMAT1 is 470in AUG... work hard, hope catch up my goal 760 this year
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles   [#permalink] 22 Sep 2016, 05:34

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 41 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 The number of articles concerning the use of sensatorium dummies 3 07 Oct 2014, 10:37
2 The number of articles concerning the use of sensatorium 1 01 Jan 2013, 14:51
The increase in the number of newspaper articles exposed as 17 19 Jul 2011, 18:17
Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles 9 12 May 2011, 07:27
Like a number of other articles, Ian Raghnalls article 23 06 Aug 2009, 06:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.