Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing importan

OG(The Bible for GMAT) Reasoning:
What assumption do research scientists make about scientists who become popularizers?

The community of scientists shares a common goal：to do important new research．What would cause this community to disapprove of a popularizer? Any scientist who becomes a popularizer appears to have given up this shared goal in order to explain science to a general audience instead．This popularizer may be assumed to have lost the motivation to do important new research．

A The issue is the scientists’ goal．not the methods they use to achieve it．

The premise is that scientists take as their colleague, only the scientists who have motivation for doing important new research.

Conclusion is popular scientists no longer can be considered as colleague.

(D) Provides the missing link... that those well known are not motivated for doing imp new reasearch. (C) maybe a reason for that, but does nothing to this missing link or Assumption. Hence D wins

Premise:
scientists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research and accept as their colleagues those with similar motivation.
Conclusion:
Therefore, when any scientist wins renown as an expounder of science to general audiences, most other scientists conclude that this popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague.

Assumption:
A populizer doesn't have motivation of doing important new research.

The explanation offered above for the low esteem in which scientific popularizers are held by research scientists assumes that

(C) a scientist can become a famous popularizer without having completed any important research
>> This doesnt answer abt the motivation in popularizer.
(D) research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research
>> Negate D and it casts doubt on conclusion.

D is correct. Here's why:

(A) serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues --> this isn't the author's argument; he never alludes to cooperation being necessary to be deemed a "true colleague"

(B) research scientists tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy --> irrelevant

(C) a scientist can become a famous popularizer without having completed any important research --> true, but this doesn't mean that that individual is not motivated

(D) research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research --> BINGO!; if you aren't motivated to do new research, then you aren't a "true colleague"

(E) no important new research can be accessible to or accurately assessed by those who are not themselves scientists --> irrelevant

Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research and accept as their colleagues those with similar motivation. Therefore, when any scientist wins renown as an expounder of science to general audiences, most other scientists conclude that this popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague.

The explanation offered above for the low esteem in which scientific popularizers 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 a famous popularizer without having completed any important research

(D) research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science 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[/quote]

PREMISES:
1. Research scientists want to do important new research.
2. Other research scientists are considered as colleagues if they also want to do important new research (similar motivation).

CONCLUSION:
When a scientist becomes famous among the general public for explaining scientific principles, he/she (popularizer) should not be regarded as a colleague by other scientists.

PRE-THINK:
As the premise says that a scientist should do important new research to be considered as a colleague, and that popularizers are doing research to be famous, so these popularizers are not doing important new research (assumed by the scientific community).

ANALYSIS OF THE ANSWER CHOICES:

(A) serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues.
We are concerned as to why a popularizer is not regarded as a colleague. Working by themselves or in groups does not connect the premises and the conclusion.

(B) research scientists tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy.
The passage does not talk about "envy".

(C) a scientist can become a famous popularizer without having completed any important research.
"HOW" a scientist becomes a famous popularizer is not our concern; we want to know why they are not considered as a true colleague.

(D) research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research.
This matches with our pre-thinking.

(E) no important new research can be accessible to or accurately assessed by those who are not themselves scientists.
"access and assessment of new research by non-scientists" is not talked about in the passage.

Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research and accept as their colleagues those with similar motivation. Therefore, when any scientist wins renown as an expounder of science to general audiences, most other scientists conclude that this popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague.

The explanation offered above for the low esteem in which scientific popularizers 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
-The argument is not about research but rather regarding scientists themselves

(B) research scientists tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy
-Incorrect

(C) a scientist can become a famous popularizer without having completed any important research
-The argument is not about how the scientists can become popularizer

(D) research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research
-Correct. Since popular scientists don't have motivation that's why other scientists disregard them.

(E) no important new research can be accessible to or accurately assessed by those who are not themselves scientists
-Out of scope

Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research and accept
as their colleagues those with similar motivation. Therefore, when any scientist wins renown
as an expounder of science to general audiences, most other scientists conclude that this
popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague. The explanation offered
above for the low esteem in which scientific popularizers 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 a famous popularizer without having completed any important research
D. research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science 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

Can you explain how exactly is 'D' weakening the conclusion?

As written, D strengthens the conclusion (it's an assumption question, where the correct answer is a necessary premise in order for the conclusion to be true). Where you may be getting "weaken" earlier in the thread is from people critiquing/weakening the argument as given, because doing so helps you understand the gap that needs to be filled. On any Strengthen or Assumption question, attacking the argument is pretty good strategy so that you understand what makes it weak and where it most needs to be strengthened.

Notice that the premise and conclusion don't really connect here at all:

Premise: Scientists accept as colleagues those who do important research.

Conclusion: Therefore they won't welcome those who expound to large audiences.

The gap here is "what does expounding to large audiences have to do with doing important research?" --> the premise and conclusion aren't connected at all, and that's where they miss each other (one's about research, the other is about expounding to large audiences).

(D) as written helps to connect that gap: hey if you are a large-audience expounder, your colleagues think you're not interested in research. And (D) is a lot easier to find if you noted earlier what made the argument so weak in the first place.


is people critiquing/weakening the argument as given, because doing so helps you understand the gap that needs to be filled. On any Strengthen or Assumption question, attacking the argument is pretty good strategy so that you understand what makes it weak

1. Read the argument
The author argues that scientists no longer regard expounders to generalists as true colleagues.

Why does he conclude this? (Evidence)
- because scientists enter the field with the goal of doing important research and accept (only accept?) those colleagues who have a similar goal

2. Know that since this is an assumption question there needs to be some evidence missing

There is a lack of clarity regarding the work done by expounders. Why can't expounders do both important research and expound?

3. Try to predict the missing piece of evidence
- Once scientists start expounding they stop doing important research
- scientists who expound do not engage in important research
- scientists who expound no longer accept their colleagues as their own

4. Eliminate 2-3 options that definitely look incorrect. Possible wrong choices are: out of scope answers, answers that repeat what is stated in the argument, or that can be inferred from the argument
A - this is not conducive to the argument
B - states that scientists dont regard other scientists who's renown they envy as their colleagues, but what about scientists who's renown they don't envy? Eliminate as this isn't relevant to the argument.
C - The method by which a scientist can become a popularizer is irrelevant to the argument
D - This fills the gap we identified above.
E - Okay, but what does the interpretation of science itself have to do with how scientists regard their colleagues? Does not add any info to bridge the gap. Eliminate

5. Negate/Deny answer choice contenders (only):
Test D (more for my practice)

research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science are notmotivated to do important new research

If scientists only accept those scientists with similar motivations to do "important research" then D clearly weakens the author's conclusion as it states that expounders actually still share this same motivation.

Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research and accept as their colleagues those with similar motivation.
Generally scientists become scientists with a particular goal. They wish to do important new research.
They are fine to partner with other scientists who also have the same goal.
(So perhaps they are not fine to partner with scientists who do not have the same goal.)

Therefore, when any scientist wins renown as an expounder of science to general audiences, most other scientists conclude that this popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague.
If a scientist explains science to general audiences, and, as a result, earns fame, other scientists stop treating him as a ‘true colleague’.
Who would the scientists consider to be a ‘true colleague’? For that we’ll need to relate this statement to the previous one.
A ‘true colleague’ would be a scientist who also shares the goal of doing important new research.

The Logic:
Scientists:
We wish to do important new research.

We expect similar motivation from our colleagues.
Therefore, we wouldn’t want to work with a scientist who earns fame by being a popularizer of science.

Why not?
They must believe that a scientist who earns fame for explaining things to the general public (a popularizer) cannot have the same motivation to do important new research.





The explanation offered above for the low esteem in which scientific popularizers are held by research scientists assumes that

“Low esteem”: ‘this popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague’

Research scientists hold scientific popularizers in low esteem.

What’s the explanation offered for this?

That’s in the first sentence: Scientists are ok to accept as their colleagues scientists who also have a goal of doing important new research.

Question: What do the scientists assume to decide that if a scientist is a popularizer, he can’t be a true colleague?

They must believe that a scientist who earns fame for explaining things to the general public (a popularizer) cannot have the same motivation to do important new research.

Framework: The correct answer will strengthen the explanation, and, without it, the explanation will break down.





(A) serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues
Incorrect.
Statement: Serious scientific research relies on cooperation among scientists.

That’s fine. The argument is about whether scientists may consider a popularizer a true colleague. This statement has no impact on the argument and, thus, is not an assumption.

Also, consider the following option:

A’. serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation between scientists and the general public

What impact does this statement have on the above explanation?

If serious scientific research relies on cooperation between scientists and the general public, perhaps scientists should still consider a popularizer a true colleague. This answer choice weakens the argument.

(B) research scientists tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy
Incorrect.
How about the following option first:
(B’) research scientists envy the renown of scientific popularizers, and they tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy

This option weakens the given explanation. This one brings in another perspective – maybe the popularizers could still be ‘true colleagues’, just that other scientists do not wish to work with them because the popularizers are famous.

Now in the original answer choice, we have no idea whether other scientists envy the popularizers. Thus the option has no impact on the argument, and, thus, can’t be an assumption.

(C) a scientist can become a famous popularizer without having completed any important research
Incorrect.
What kind of a scientist can become a famous popularizer is not relevant to the argument. No impact.

(D) research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research
Correct.
This one fits. This is in line with my initial understanding.
If research scientists believe that the popularizers do not share the same goal of doing important new research, they would not consider the popularizers ‘true colleagues’. This statement supports the reasoning.

Negation: research scientists do not believe that those who are well know as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research

In that case, the explanation will cease to explain the conclusion.

(E) no important new research can be accessible to or accurately assessed by those who are not themselves scientists
Incorrect.
No impact. What research non-scientists can access or assess is irrelevant to the argument.

Hi experts
I am not bale to eliminate option C

(C) a scientist can become a famous popularizer without having completed any important research

This options strengthens the argument as scientific researchers claim that a famous popularizer isn't motivated enough to do research. In option as well it is mentioned that scientist can become popularizer without completing research.

If I negate this:
a scientist cannot become a famous popularizer without having completed any important research
Then the argument completely breaks as the assumption of scientific researchers is that the one who earns fame for explaining things to the general public has never completed or will never complete any important research.

Let's start by breaking down the argument.

The passage tells that most scientists don't regard popularizers as true colleagues. Why not? Because scientists generally "accept as their colleagues" those who "enter their field with the goal of doing important new research."

Let's now consider (C):



As you point out, (C) tells us that a scientist can become a popularizer without "having completed any important research." Does this strengthen the argument? Possibly. But is it absolutely necessary? Not really.

Notice that to be accepted as a colleague, you don't actually have to do any "important research." You just have to enter the field with the goal of doing important research.

Put another way, the criterion for being accepted as a colleague is all about motivation, not results. According to this criterion, a person who enters the field with the goal of doing important new research would be accepted as a colleague even if they don't actually do any important research.

On the other hand, a person who actually does important research would NOT be accepted as a colleague IF they didn't "enter their field with the goal of doing important new research." Admittedly, this seems like a silly definition. Surely, you deserve to be accepted as a colleague if you do great research, right? But the passage is very specific about the criterion. It's not doing research that counts, but "entering the field" with the motivation (i.e. goal) to do important research.

So the argument DOES assume that a popularizer wouldn't "enter their field" with the goal of doing important research. But it does NOT assume you can become a popularizer without actually having done important research. For that reason, we can eliminate (C).

I hope that helps!

dear avigutman,
AndrewN,
MartyTargetTestPrep ,
GMATNinjaTwo,

I have a question that have not been discussed in this thread.
from the 1st sentence: accept as their colleagues those with similar motivation.

can I say those with similar motivation is a necessary assumption of accept as colleagues?

thanks in advance