There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially con

Give me A!
- B, C Irrelevant.
B: Quite obviously
C: The fact that most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to replication does not say whether unconfirmed results are harmful or not.
- D Irrelevant comparison
- E : I took awhile to eliminate this. But I guess this strengthens the argument. If most scientists work is teams then they could already be verifying each others results. So no need for explicit replication. I know this is a bit far fetched but it does not weaken the argument for sure!

Straight A.

If scientists' work can go on for several years without being verified? Then that weakens the assertion that scientists' work should not be scrutinized.

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz.

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published.

P1: There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists.
P2: Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful.
P3: It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.

(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.
>>Strengthen.
(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.
>>Strengthen
(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.
>> Irrelevant.
(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.
>> Irrelevant

Could anyone please explain further on this??

There is no mention of any time frame on any of the premises.

Can someone also specify what is wrong with option E?

Can the "other" scientists mentioned in the premise not be part of the group??

In "Weaken" questions - The idea is to attack the argument - i.e. conclusion. Always write the goal of the weakening. The goal in this case is : There is a reason that the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published.

This reason (one of the possible reasons) is highlighted in option A. Option E only mentions that scientists work as a part of team rather than alone. This aspect doesn't give any reason for the scientists' work to be officially confirmed. (Working as a part of team can lead of confirmation or disconfirmation of the work. No clear cut position)

Hope this helps.

Can Someone explain why option C is Incorrect!

Option (C) States scientists are under pressure , there can be 2 possible outcomes of working under pressure -

1. Scientists can be cautious of their work , be very careful and produce accurate results.
2. Scientists can go unnerved and commit some errors.

If scientists are cautious of their work , very careful then there is no need of scrutinizing of replication of their work, however if they are go unnerved and commit errors then it needs to be checked and requires replication by other scientists before they are published.

This option doesn't produce a way way answer ( whether there is requirement/replication of experiments by scientists ) hence we can negate this answer.

Understanding the argument -
There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. - Conclusion. It says, "There is no reason to do this."
There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. - Supporting premise.
Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. - Fact
It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results. - Opinion and supporting premise.

Option Elimination - Weaken

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated. - If this is the case, then this is a big reason. Ok.
(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication. - Strengthener.
(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication. - Strengthener. If they are under pressure to ensure that it can be replicated, they'll do everything beforehand to ensure it's correct. So, there is no reason for the official confirmation.
(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud. - This comparison is out of scope.
(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone. - Strengthener.