ganand
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.
(C) Almost all of the scientists surveyed are familiar with the way in which the results of the Brown-Eisler Experiment were obtained.
Breaking down the promptPremise/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
Hi can anyone please negate A?
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.)
Quote:
How is it important whether scientists are aware or not aware of the contradiction?
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
(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.
Quote:
generis can you please comment .
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.