A large survey of scientists found that almost all accept Wang's Law,

So i get how negating the correct answer breaks the assumption. How does "scientists generally don't know..." break the conclusion that "most scientists reject the minsk"? I bet its something super simple and im just missing it being tired and what not but I'd love to know.

Kindly read the highlighted text above.

A large survey of scientists found that almost all accept Wang's Law, and almost all know the results of the Brown-Eisler Experiment. But those results together with Wang's Law contradict the Minsk Hypothesis. Therefore, most of the scientists surveyed reject the Minsk Hypothesis.

The argument requires assuming which one of the following?

(A) The scientists surveyed are generally aware that the results of the Brown-Eisler Experiment together with Wang's Law contradict the Minsk Hypothesis. -Correct. We know that the scientists accept the W Law and know the results of BE Experiment. We know that the scientists reject M Hypothesis. Thus this is acting as a link between the two statements.

(B) The scientists in the survey who know the results of the Brown-Eisler Experiment are exactly the same ones who accept Wang's Law. -This is as stating the premise in different terms.

(C) Almost all of the scientists surveyed are familiar with the way in which the results of the Brown-Eisler Experiment were obtained. -Irrelevant

(D) The sample is large enough to be representative of scientists in the field. -Irrelevant

(E) Wang's Law has in fact been shown to be true. -Irrelevant

I do not like this question. The fact that A is the answer (i.e. must be true) implies that the only way scientists could reject Minsk is by knowing Wang + BE. Is it not possible that a scientist rejects the Minsk hypothesis for a reason other than knowing Wang + BE?

Hi,

Amongst all the choices option A is the only viable solution. There will be many choices that you won't find good, but they will be correct answers. People who create these questions spend tons of time creating such questions, no wonder we all get confused.
Try to find the rational behind each question and its options. That will be really helpful in the long run.

I hope that helps.
Regards

The key here lies in the wording of the question. The question says "almost all accept", "almost all know the results" and "most of the scientists". These make option B wrong and A correct.

A large survey of scientists found that almost all accept Wang's Law, and almost all know the results of the Brown-Eisler Experiment. But those results together with Wang's Law contradict the Minsk Hypothesis. Therefore, most of the scientists surveyed reject the Minsk Hypothesis.

The argument requires assuming which one of the following?

[Pre-thinking: In the survey, all the scientists accept the WL and all know the results of BES experiment. The conclusion drawn is that most of the scientists surveyed reject the MH because the results together with WL contradict the MH. Therefore, the assumption could be: The scientists surveyed are aware of the contradiction.]

(A) The scientists surveyed are generally aware that the results of the Brown-Eisler Experiment together with Wang's Law contradict the Minsk Hypothesis.
[As per the pre-thinking]

(B) The scientists in the survey who know the results of the Brown-Eisler Experiment are exactly the same ones who accept Wang's Law.

[How does it fill up the missing link that the scientists reject the MH?]

(C) Almost all of the scientists surveyed are familiar with the way in which the results of the Brown-Eisler Experiment were obtained.

[How the results are obtained has nothing to do with the missing link.]

(D) The sample is large enough to be representative of scientists in the field.

[The argument just talks about the scientist surveyed and not all scientists in general. Moreover, nothing to fill up the missing link.]

(E) Wang's Law has in fact been shown to be true.

[Doesn’t help fill up the missing link.]

Option A.

Hi can anyone please negate A?

How is it important whether scientists are aware or not aware of the contradiction?

Let's say they are not aware and they discovered this connection or correlation at that time itself. How does it impact the conclusion that they would or would not reject the mink theory.

I think C would have been correct had it stated "most of the scientists agree that the way the BE experiment was conducted is correct"

If the way experiment was conducted wasn't correct then the results could be faulty and correlation could be incorrect, but unfortunately that is not the case with C.

generis can you please comment .

Posted from my mobile device

Breaking down the prompt

Premise/Fact #1: Almost all scientists surveyed accept [and thus obviously know about] Wang's Law.
Fact #2: Almost all scientists surveyed know the results of the B-E experiment.
Fact #3: The results of the B-E experiment together with Wang's Law contradict the Minsk Hypothesis.
[Hmm. No mention of the scientists who were surveyed: do they know about this contradiction, this problem that ruins the Minsk Hypothesis?
The other two sentences focus entirely on what the surveyed scientists know.]

Conclusion: Therefore [based on the above premises], most of the scientists surveyed reject the Minsk Hypothesis.

Issue: The conclusion implies that the scientists base their rejection of the Minsk Hypothesis on the fact that the combined effect of BEE and W "contradict" and thus "ruin" M.
But the premise that mentions the contradiction does not say anything about whether the scientists know about the ruinous contradiction.
Mudit27021988 , sure.

Normal:
(A) The scientists surveyed are generally aware that the results of the Brown-Eisler Experiment (BEE) together with Wang's Law (W) contradict the Minsk Hypothesis (M).
Negated:
(A) The scientists surveyed are not generally aware that the Minsk Hypothesis is contradicted by a combination of the results of the B-E Experiment and Wang's Law.

(I rearranged the words to keep the focus of the conclusion foremost in my mind.)

Conclusion? Destroyed.
The conclusion implies that most scientists reject the Minsk Hypothesis because BEE and WL, combined, contradict M.

In the negated option (A), scientists do not know that BEE and W, taken together, contradict M.
Scientists who do not know that M is contradicted have no reason to reject M on the basis of that contradiction.

The negated assumption destroys the conclusion and is therefore the one upon which the conclusion rests. Check other answers, though, to be sure.

(The correct answer is A.)
Mudit27021988 , I read this question incorrectly the first time. I incorrectly read "How important IS awareness..."
rather than "How IS awareness important..." Tired eyes.]

EDIT: Suppose that the surveyed scientists say, "I reject [tentative] hypothesis M based on the fact that M is contradicted by the combined effect of a fairly certain law (Wang's) and factual, verifiable experiment results (B-E)."

That statement is the conclusion.

But if the scientists do not know about the contradiction, then they cannot use the contradiction as a basis to reject something. The scientists cannot even mention the contradiction. They are not aware that it exists.

We have to be aware of something in order to use that something as a basis for rejection.

Awareness is the central issue.
What, these questions are not hard enough already? (I'm happy to answer. I just like the fact that you're determined to see as many angles as you can.)

If the scientists were not aware that BEE and W contradict M before the survey;
and if the scientists were told that BEE and W contradict M while the scientists take the survey;
then the scientists would reject the Minsk Hypothesis . . . and we would not have a question.

The Minsk Hypothesis is theoretical.
Wang's Law is an accepted rule (a law is a rule).
The results of the B-E experiments are empirical facts , and until the scientists can run their own experiments,
the results are true.

In a contest between
-- a law + experiment results on the one hand, and
-- a hypothesis that just got contradicted by the law plus empirical results on the other hand . . .
-- The hypothesis loses. A hypothesis has less scientific certainty than a law + experiment results.
(C) would still have to mention that the scientists were aware that the Minsk Hypothesis was contradicted by the BEE and W. Your point about methodology is interesting.

The unvoidable issue, though, is whether the scientists knew about the contradiction. It's a fact that Wang's Law and the BEEx, combined, contradict the M Hypothesis.

IF the scientists do not know about the contradiction, then even deep confidence in study results will not lead them to reject M.
Why would they reject M? They have no idea that there is a problem with M.
I hope that I have helped.

I am noticing from the thread that people are focused on the scientific logic.
This question is not about science.
This question is about states of mind (what the scientists knew).

Analogous situation:

Fact #1) generis knows that ammonia cleans well
Fact #2) generis knows that chlorine cleans well
Fact #3) Ammonia and chlorine, combined, produce toxic gas.

Conclusion: generis will not make a cleaning solution out of ammonia and chlorine mixed together.
WRONG.
#3 needs to say "generis knows" that ammonia and chlorine, combined, produce toxic gas.

If I do not know #3, I have no reason to avoid mixing two good cleaning products.

At the least, no one can conclude that I will avoid or reject the idea of mixing chlorine and ammonia.
I do not know enough to reject mixing them.
The question goes to my state of mind: I cannot reject what I do not know about.
Specifically, I cannot use the fact of toxic gas production as a basis to reject mixing ammonia and chlorine because I don't know about the toxic gas.

I hope that helps.

The best possible explanation as always . Thanks allot

Posted from my mobile device

Hi, I have a doubt

I rejected option A because I felt that even if they don???t know, since the rules itself are contradictory it will not be accepted.
To explain in mathematical terms,
I know that 2 is a multiple of 6 (Wang???s law) and 3 is a multiple of 6(Brown-Eisler). But 2 and 3 are not multiple of 7. Thus 6 (those together as mentioned in stimulus) are not multiple of 7, doesn???t matter whether I know that 6 is not a multiple of 7 (Option A states on the contrary says that knowing is important) it will be accepted by me.

Analyzing option C

First the argument
A large survey of scientists found that "almost all" (means >50%) accept Wang's Law, and "almost all" (means >50%) know the results of the Brown-Eisler Experiment. But those results together with Wang's Law contradict the Minsk Hypothesis. Therefore, most (>50%) of the scientists surveyed reject the Minsk Hypothesis.

But what if scientist 1 to 51 accept Wang's law
Scientist 50 to 100 know Brown-Eisler
Then only 1 will reject Minsk Hyposthesis. Thus set has to match

(A) The scientists surveyed are generally aware that the results of the Brown-Eisler Experiment together with Wang's Law contradict the Minsk Hypothesis.
Correct. If the scientists surveyed are unware the contradiction, we can't conclude that they will reject the Minsk Hypothesis.

The logic is like when we easily make a comparison between two known things, but hardly to make a comparison between a known thing and an unknown thing, or another thing that is irrelevant to the former.

But Even if they do not know about the contradiction, they would automatically be rejecting minsk hypothesis, because they support W law and know he BE result. So how does them knowing even affect the conclusion?

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.