There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 19 Jan 2017, 22:09

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

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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 874
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 111 [0], given: 0

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Dec 2006, 11:42
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

81% (02:10) correct 19% (01:27) wrong based on 85 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. 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.
(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.
(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.
(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

Please give reasons for ur choice....
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 78
Location: New York
Followers: 1

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

Show Tags

04 Dec 2006, 11:59
is it A?
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

04 Dec 2006, 12:34
vineetgupta wrote:
There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. 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.
there is a possibilty of harm being done
(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.
(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.
(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.
(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

Please give reasons for ur choice....
Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 69
Followers: 1

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

Show Tags

04 Dec 2006, 18:23
vineetgupta wrote:
There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. 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.
(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.
(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.
(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

Please give reasons for ur choice....

Argument is : There is no reason to confirm the work of the scientist becuase there is a system which keeps track of replications.So when other scientists come up with different results the previous results will be disconfirmed.

A: Irrelevant because the work can go unchallenged even after the results have been confirmed and published. History has shown several theories were proved wrong decades after they were published.

B: S

C:W

D,E:Irrelevant

C
_________________

------------------------------------------------------
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams"

Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 44
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

04 Dec 2006, 20:52
Its A for me...
Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 734
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 4

Show Tags

04 Dec 2006, 21:14
joinforum wrote:
vineetgupta wrote:
There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. 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.
(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.
(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.
(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

Please give reasons for ur choice....

Argument is : There is no reason to confirm the work of the scientist becuase there is a system which keeps track of replications.So when other scientists come up with different results the previous results will be disconfirmed.

A: Irrelevant because the work can go unchallenged even after the results have been confirmed and published. History has shown several theories were proved wrong decades after they were published.

B: S

C:W

D,E:Irrelevant

C

I think A is the answer because, for years scientists and public at large might consider findings of a particular publication as true and spend their time, funds, and energy inappropriately. Hence, there is a reason to confirm the work of the scientist.
Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 152
Followers: 1

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

Show Tags

04 Dec 2006, 21:27
I think A

C strengthen the argument
_________________

livin in a prison island...

VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1134
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

05 Dec 2006, 00:12
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!
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 874
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 111 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

05 Dec 2006, 05:08
thanks...the OA is A.
Manager
Joined: 01 Dec 2011
Posts: 69
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 12

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Feb 2012, 11:01
+A
_________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudos

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 271
GMAT 1: 750 Q V
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 6

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Jun 2012, 03:58
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.
_________________

+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 307
Followers: 521

Kudos [?]: 983 [2] , given: 2

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Jun 2012, 13:55
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
The conclusion: no official confirmation of scientific work is not a problem because replication will sort out any inconsistencies.

Any answer choice that shows the replication process is somehow faulty will be sufficient to weaken the conclusion.

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

If (A) is true, then the potential inconsistencies can go undetected for years. Such an occurrence can be very harmful. Essentially, erroneous information is being bandied about for years before any follow-up experiments can show this to be the case. Therefore, replication can only be successful if it is actually employed, and (A) successfully weakens the conclusion.

(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.

This does not address the argument.

(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.

This answer choice would strengthen the argument, if anything. Even less need for confirmation.

(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.

While this may be true, the argument contends that replication will take care of this careless reporting.

(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

This does not address the argument.
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep

Manager
Joined: 05 Sep 2012
Posts: 79
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 17

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Feb 2013, 04:24

Conclusion: Formal system for approving or disproving is not required.

We have to find the flaw in argument. A gives the flaw.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10534
Followers: 918

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 May 2015, 12:35
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2014
Posts: 62
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Sep 2015, 23:15
ChrisLele wrote:
The conclusion: no official confirmation of scientific work is not a problem because replication will sort out any inconsistencies.

Any answer choice that shows the replication process is somehow faulty will be sufficient to weaken the conclusion.

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

If (A) is true, then the potential inconsistencies can go undetected for years. Such an occurrence can be very harmful. Essentially, erroneous information is being bandied about for years before any follow-up experiments can show this to be the case. Therefore, replication can only be successful if it is actually employed, and (A) successfully weakens the conclusion.

(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.

This does not address the argument.

(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.

This answer choice would strengthen the argument, if anything. Even less need for confirmation.

(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.

While this may be true, the argument contends that replication will take care of this careless reporting.

(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

This does not address the argument.

Hi Chris

Need your help. It is in these types of easy questions where I falter. First I short-listed A and E and finally went for E. My thought process was even if theories go unchallenged for years, still we cant say that replication method is of no use and has failed. I also cant assume a theory gone unnoticed will be harmful-may or may not. I eliminated A for this and went for E thinking if scientists work in teams, it may not be possible to identify the one at fault and the culprit can go unnoticed every time.

I think I tend to complicate questions or have a tendency to think too much and so I am suffering with CR. Can you give some advice? How to address this issue? Tx.
There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be   [#permalink] 05 Sep 2015, 23:15
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 *700* There is no reason why the work of scientists 5 17 Apr 2015, 09:27
There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be 1 12 May 2011, 23:20
10 One reason why European music has had such a strong 65 23 Sep 2009, 11:33
1 One reason why European music has had such a strong 17 22 Oct 2008, 10:42
One reason why European music has had such a strong 3 13 Feb 2007, 14:50
Display posts from previous: Sort by