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.
_________________