conclusion therefore, when any marine biologist becomes a household name in the field of documentary nature films, most other scientists conclude that this biologist should no longer be regarded as a true colleague
IMO D; breaks the conclusion upon negation
Research scientists believe that those who are well known as marine biologists who make documentary films are motivated to do important new research

Generally, marine biologists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research. They expect their colleagues to have similar goals. Therefore, when any marine biologist becomes a household name in the field of documentary nature films, most other scientists conclude that this biologist should no longer be regarded as a true colleague.

The explanation offered above for the low esteem in which marine biologists who make documentary films are held by research scientists assumes that

A. Serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues
B. Research scientists tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy
C. A scientist can become famous as a marine biologist who makes documentary films without having completed any important research
D. Research scientists believe that those who are well known as marine biologists who make documentary films are not motivated to do important new research
E. No important new research can be accessible to or accurately assessed by those who are not themselves scientists

Generally, marine biologists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research. They expect their colleagues to have similar goals. Therefore, when any marine biologist becomes a household name in the field of documentary nature films, most other scientists conclude that this biologist should no longer be regarded as a true colleague.


We have to resolve the paradox b/w 2nd and 3rd sentences

(D) fits perfectly in resolving the gap... Why marine biologists consider the ones who are into films not as a true scientist...



OA:D

Posted from my mobile device

We're looking for an option that makes us believe that for a marine biologist becoming famous is incompatible with desiring to do important new research. Option D properly identifies an assumption on which the explanation of marine biologists rejection of famous marine biologists depends.
_________________

ARGUMENT
[prem] MBs goal is of doing important new research and they expect their mates to have similar goals (imp research);
[con] Most MBs conclude that others who become famous should no longer be regarded as a true colleague;
[asum] If MBs expect their mates to have similar goals (doing imp research), then after some become famous others must assume that these goals have changed.

ASSUMPTION
A. irev;
B. irev;
C. "become famous w/o completing imp research" does not mean they have changed their goals, out;
E. out of scope;

Answer (D): if they are not motivated to do important research, then their goals have changed.

The answer has to be option D in my view.

Conclusion: a marine biologist who becomes a household name in documentary nature films should no longer be regarded as a true colleague.

Premise: a marine biologist has to have a goal of doing important research.

From the conclusion, the author is suggesting that a marine biologist who becomes a household name in documentary nature films is no longer interested in or motivated to carry out important research, which is considered a goal in the field of marine biology. This is exactly what option D states, and hence the correct answer.

Imo. D.

Premise: Generally, marine biologists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research. They expect their colleagues to have similar goals.

Conclusion: Therefore, when any marine biologist becomes a household name in the field of documentary nature films, most other scientists conclude that this biologist should no longer be regarded as a true colleague.

It's required to identify assumption made by most other scientists, who concluded that marine biologist are no longer be considered a true colleague once he becomes prominent in the area of documentary nature films. Hence, it's required to identify the assumption by creating falsification Scenario that will invalid the conclusion when assumption is negated.

Falsification Scenario: Such marine biologist regarded as true colleague, even though he becomes a household name in the field of documentary nature films.

Potential assumption: What if such marine biologist continues to do important research even after becoming well known in his field of work.
Such assumption will support the falsification scenario and crumble the conclusion of the paragraph.

The explanation offered above for the low esteem in which marine biologists who make documentary films are held by research scientists assumes that

A. Serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues - It does not impact the conclusion even after negating the statement.
B. Research scientists tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy - nothing mentioned about enviousness in the argument. Hence, incorrect
C. A scientist can become famous as a marine biologist who makes documentary films without having completed any important research - Out of scope.
D. Research scientists believe that those who are well known as marine biologists who make documentary films are not motivated to do important new research - Certainly, it will destroy the conclusion made by other scientists that renowned biologist is no longer to be considered true colleague. Hold it.
E. No important new research can be accessible to or accurately assessed by those who are not themselves scientists - Out of scope.

Official Explanation

Correct Answer: D

The conclusion that biologists who make documentaries should no longer be regarded as true colleagues is based on the assumption that such biologists will not longer do important new research
_________________