Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing importan

Question

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

ID: 500309

zhenmaster · Accepted Answer

The premise is scientists think motivation to do important new research = worthy of colleague. Conclusion is when scientist wins renown, then scientist != colleague. So the assumption is those who win renown are not motivated, and therefore cannot be a colleague.

(D)

(D)

IEsailor · Answer

Lets try and do it mathematically

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.
 
1) Scientists accept = people with equal motivation
2) Scientists do not accept = people who win acclaim or Popularizers
 
From 1) and 2)

Popularizers do not have the motivation

Hence clearly D

Hope this Helps

nitya34 · Answer

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．

gmattokyo · Answer

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

JarvisR · Answer

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.

law258 · Answer

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
>> Negate D and it casts doubt on conclusion.

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

Aiena · Answer

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

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.

gmatexam439 · Answer

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

Amrutha1 · Answer

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?

VeritasPrepBrian · Answer

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

dcummins · Answer

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  not motivated 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.

AnishPassi · Answer

The Story

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.

Question Stem

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.

Answer Choice Analysis

(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.

MukuDawra · Answer

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.

GMATNinja · Answer

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!

ADisHere · Answer

I have spent a lot of time for this question for eliminating A
lets see why A is wrong

Imp R -> TC Wins =/= TC

So it should mean that the one who wins =/= Imp R

Hence D is correct as it bridges the gap
Why is A incorrect?
nowhere is the author telling that active cooperation is required for considering someone as a true colleague
..

Anshpalsahni · Answer

We should follow the Ellimination route to Elliminate 4 choices on serious grounds.

1st Step: Set the scope, which in Assumption is Conclusion + Must be true for conclusion

Conclusion: More than 50% scientists that after renown that scientist should not be regarded as true collegue.

Scope: So what must be true for the scientists to say this.

2nd Step: (Pre thinking 10-15sec) Key is to focus on the what makes a scientist a true collegue in the first place? That would be evident from line 1 i.e a scientist accept another as a collegue if he has same motivation.

3rd Step : (Ellimination step)

(A) One should elliminate it in a flash. Totally irrelevant to the scope.

(B) Okay this seems a possible assumption so this would require careful ellimination. We cannot just cancel this. Notice it mentions only those who they envy. So we go to the passage and see it considers Any i.e does not filter the renown winning scientist if they envy them or not. So elliminate this.

(C) Can or cannot become. We don't care. Elliminate in a blink.

(D) Okay so if they are not motivated so would any other scientist select them as collegues? No right as per the scope and passage. So this true. Let's keep it

(E) Totally irrelevant. Elliminate in a blink.

KevinMercurio · Answer

So I ruled out D, since it said "research scientists" and the question is discussing "scientists". How is this correct, when the answer address the wrong group.

guddo · Answer

The wording in (D) is actually consistent with the question. The question itself asks about the low esteem in which popularizers are held by  “research scientists.”
 
Also, in the passage, the relevant “scientists” are specifically those whose goal is doing important new research. So calling them “research scientists” does not switch to a different group. It simply makes explicit which scientists the argument is talking about.

That is why (D) addresses the correct group.

egmat · Answer

Hi KevinMercurio,

I love that you're checking the wording, because that instinct catches a lot of CR traps. But here the shift from "scientists" to "research scientists" isn't a shift to a  different group  - it's the same group, just named more fully.

Look at the question stem itself:

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

The stem is the one that introduces the label "research scientists," and it's clearly pointing at the very scientists described in the stimulus - the ones who "enter their field with the goal of doing important new research and accept as their colleagues those with similar motivation." Those people  are  research scientists. "Scientist" in the passage is just the shorter word for the same person.

So (D) isn't addressing a new group - it's describing what  those same scientists believe  about popularizers: that popularizers "are not motivated to do important new research." That belief is exactly the missing link between the premise (colleagues share the research motivation) and the conclusion (popularizers aren't true colleagues).

When does a term-swap actually matter?

Only when the new word changes  who  or  what  is covered. Compare:

- "research scientists" vs. "scientists" - same people, no gap. ✅
- "scientists" vs. " all  people in the lab" - now you've widened the group, and that  would  be a real scope change. ⚠️

The test here is simple: ask  "Does this word add or remove anyone?"  In (D), it doesn't - it just spells out the same group. So the wording is safe, and (D) is the assumption that bridges the argument.

Answer: D

Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing importan

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing importan

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia