ANS A)
The missing gap ibetween presmise and conclusion is stated in the answer and therefore has to be an assumption .


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum

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.

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
_________________

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
_________________

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.

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.
_________________