This question is very classical strategy used in GMAT. It shifts the intended meaning by using "similar" words that have different meanings.
Let see why.ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:
talk about the pursuit of truth, but, like most people, they are self-interested.
Accordingly, the professional activities of most scientists are directed toward personal career enhancement, and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth. Conclusion:
Hence, the activities of the scientific community
are largely directed toward enhancing the status of that community as a whole, and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth. NOTE:
The philosopher just used scientists as an example to conclude about “scientific community”. But scientific community does not include ONLY scientists.
The scientific community includes (but not limited) scientists, teachers, doctors, professors, and indeed any people who are doing scientific activities. “Scientists” is only a sub-group of “scientific community”.ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:
a) improperly infers that each and every scientist has a certain characteristic from the premise
that most scientists have that characteristicWrong.
It may be a true fact. But it does not provide the FALLACY in the philosopher’s argument which shifts the meaning of “scientists’ activities” to “scientific community”.
b) improperly draws an inference about the scientific community as a whole from a premise
about individual scientistsCorrect.
The philosopher’s fallacy is that he used only a sub-group (scientists) to make a generalization for a whole group.
c) presumes, without giving justification, that the aim of personal career enhancement never
advances the pursuit of truthWrong. Reverse answer.
The philosopher actually presumes the aim of personal career enhancement often advances
the pursuit of truth. Thus, C is not what the philosopher said. Hence, It’s wrong.
d) illicitly takes advantage of an ambiguity in the meaning of “self-interested”Wrong.
The argument does NOT discuss the DEFINITION of “self-interested”. Thus, its meaning does not make up the fallacy of the philosopher.
e) improperly draws an inference about a cause from premises about its effectsWrong.
The cause is “personal career enhancement”. The effect is “incidentally toward the pursuit of truth”. We, ourselves, don’t know the cause is proper or not, thus we can’t say that the philosopher improperly draws in inference about the cause.TAKEAWAY:"Similar" words may have different meanings
Hope it helps.
Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.
"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."
Chris Bangle - Former BMV Chief of Design.