Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and

Question

Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and promotions depend significantly on the amount of their published work. People responsible for making hiring and promotion decisions in the biomedical research field, however, are influenced much more by the overall impact that a candidate's scientific publications have on his or her field than by the number of those publications.

The information above, if accurate, argues most strongly against which of the following claims?

(A) Even biomedical researchers who are just beginning their careers are expected already to have published articles of major significance to the field.

(B) Contributions to the field of biomedical research are generally considered to be significant only if the work is published.

(C) The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is sometimes taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers.

(D) People responsible for hiring or promoting biomedical researchers can reasonably be expected to make a fair assessment of the overall impact of a candidate's publications on his or her field.

(E) Biomedical researchers can substantially increase their chances of promotion by fragmenting their research findings so that they are published in several journals instead of one.

ID: 500407

00922

Source :  GMATPrep Default Exam Pack  Would C be a contender if the word "sometimes" isn't there?

egmat · Accepted Answer

Hi,

Understanding question stem is the key in this question. It says that we need to find an option statement which is most strongly opposed by the passage. So, this means that the passage should support the opposite (or negation ) of the correct choice. S, while evaluating option statements, what we need to do is negate the option statement and then, see if the negated option statement is supported by the passage or not. If the negate statement is supported by the passage, then that option is the correct choice.

Now, with this understanding in mind, whether I keep "sometimes" or not in the option statement C is not going to impact the answer because the negation of both the statement is same:

The negation of "The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is sometimes taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers." is

The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is   never   taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers.

The negation of "The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers." is

The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is   not   sometimes taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers.

So, keeping or removing "Sometimes" will not help.

Now, why option C is incorrect? Let's look at the negated statement:

The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is never taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers.

Does the passage support this? The answer is No. The passage does not talk about unpublished work and it does not say that only published work is considered. So, this choice is incorrect.

Let's now negate option E:

Biomedical researchers   cannot   substantially increase their chances of promotion by fragmenting their research findings so that they are published in several journals instead of one

Is this supported by the passage? The answer is Yes. The passage clearly says that quality is important, not the quantity. So, a person cannot increase his chance by splitting his work into many published papers because the content and therefore, the quality remains same.

Does this help?

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

GMATNinja · Answer

The passage describes a belief held by junior biomedical researchers that "their hirings and promotions depend significantly on the amount of their published work." This belief is contradicted by the fact that the people actually in charge of hiring and promoting biomedical researchers are "influenced much more by the overall impact that a candidate's scientific publications have on his or her field than by the number of those publications."

Take another look at the question stem:
 
This is not a typical "weaken" question, in which we would use an answer choice to weaken the argument in the passage -- instead, we need to use the information in the passage to argue against an answer choice.

With this in mind, let's go through the answer choices:
 
Going back to the question stem, we need to ask: does the information in the passage  argue against  this answer choice?

From the passage, we know that the people responsible for hiring and promoting  junior  biomedical researchers are influenced by the impact of a candidate's publications on his/her field when making hiring or promotion decisions. This seems to support the idea that researchers "just beginning their careers" need to have already published works of significance in order to get hired.

It could also be the case that "junior biomedical researchers" are not quite the same population as researchers "just beginning their career." If this is the case, then the passage does not give any information either way on the expected impact publications of researchers just beginning their careers.

Either way, the passage certainly does not argue  against  the statement in answer choice (A), so it can be eliminated.

The passage tells us that both junior biomedical researchers and the people who hire and promote these researchers believe some aspect of published works to be important  in the hiring and promotion process.

Notice that answer choice (B) does not mention the hiring or promotion process -- it is a statement about the importance of a contribution in general, not just in regards to hiring/promotion decisions. The passage simply does not give us any information about the significance of works outside of the hiring/promotion process, whether those works are published or not. Based on this, you can't say that the information in the passage argues against this answer choice. (B) is out.

From the passage, we know that both junior biomedical researchers and the people who hire and promote these researchers believe some aspect of published works to be important in the hiring and promotion process. However, the passage  does not give us information on what the people responsible for hirings/promotions think about "not-yet-published work."  It is entirely possible that not-yet-published work "sometimes" plays a role in the hiring or promotion process. So, we cannot conclude that the information in the passage argues against the idea that "the potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is sometimes taken into account" in hiring or promotion decisions. We can eliminate (C).

We know from the passage that the people responsible for hiring or promoting biomedical researchers are influenced by the impact of a candidate's publications on his or her field. However,  we have no way of knowing how "fair" these assessments of impact are  -- maybe there is an objective way of assessing impact, or maybe it depends entirely on how the hiring manager happens to feel that day. Because the passage does not address fairness, we cannot conclude that it argues against this answer choice. (D) is out.

The people responsible for hiring/promotion decisions are influenced more by the  impact  of published works than the  number  of published works.

If biomedical researchers "fragment  their research findings so that they are published in several different journals instead of one," they would increase the number of publications, but would not change the impact of their research findings.

So, fragmenting their research findings would not substantially increase their chances of promotion. The information in the passage clearly argues against the statement in answer choice (E), so this is our answer.

I hope that helps!

Zarrolou · Answer

The argument says something like:
 it's the quality/the impact not the quantity that matters to get promotions

The information above, if accurate, argues most strongly against which of the following claims?

e. Biomedical researchers can substantially  increase their chances of promotion by  fragmenting their research findings ( HENCE increasing the QUANTITY ) so that they are published in several journals instead of one.  This is against what the argument says.

To answer your question:
 c. The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is  sometimes  taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers. 
IMO no. C talks about the  "potential scientific importance" , but the argument talks about the "impact" (something not "potential", something that already happened, if it's clear what I mean...). C remains out of scope.

smartmanav · Answer

whats wrong with B here ?
Argument talks about impact of published scientific articles, so B is also against what argument said.

pqhai · Answer

Hi smartmanav

I'm glad to help.

ANALYZE THE QUESTION

First of all, you need to understand what the question stem says correctly. This is the KEY.
"The  information above , if accurate, argues most strongly  against which of the following claims ?" <== the conclusion that is being weaken is NOT in the argument. You need to find  which CONCLUSION is weaken  the most  by THE INFORMATION in the argument .

NOTE:  This question stem is the  reverse version  of "normal" weaken questions which say: which of the  information following , if accurate, argues most strongly against the  argument conclusion ? The normal weaken questions will ask you to find information that weakens the conclusion in the stimulus. But this question is not the same pattern.  The information is already in the stimulus, your task is to find a conclusion that the information tries to weaken.

Back to the question,
The “information above” indicates that: to increase chances of promotion, publications quality is more important than quantity ==> Thus, this information "should" weaken the conclusion which indicates that quantity can help increase the chances of promotion

What B says.   
 "Contributions to the field of biomedical research are generally considered to be significant only if the work is published."

Does “the information above” weaken the conclusion in B? To weaken the conclusion which maintains that "contribution of research are considered to be significant only if the work is published", the stimulus “should” says something like “contribution of research are considered to be significant  even when the work has not published yet ”. But you don't see any information like that in the stimulus.  So, B cannot be  the conclusion  that is weaken by the stimulus.

Hope it helps.

Nilabh_s · Answer

what is wrong with option A
"Even biomedical researchers who are just beginning their careers are expected already to have published articles of major significance to the field"

The last line in the stimulus says quality & not quantity is important. but what if every-one has the required quality then the differentiator will be no. of good quality publications.

apps17 · Answer

Hi

Here is how you should solve this one when in GMAT.

Let us first paraphrase the argument given

BMR: Hir.&Promo dep. no. of published work

Ppl. (Hir n Promo): Impact > no. of work

the above argument is against which of the following claims ?

prethink : if the argument is against the following claim then argument, it would lay less importance impact and more on number

let see which option does this

A. this remotely supports the argument and is not anti 
B. OOS, as published or not published is not scope of the work 
C. not-yet published is OOS 
D.This is assumption of the argument given so it cannot be anti claim as assumption supports the arg. 
E. By elimination --> yes 
 but even if you prethink , E fits the bill because given argument goes against the strategy of increasing chances of promotion by splitting work into many.

Thanks

Apoorva

semwal · Answer

Junior biomedical researchers  have long assumed that their  hirings and promotions depend significantly on the amount of their published work.   People responsible for making hiring and promotion decisions  in the biomedical research field, however, are influenced much more by the  overall impact that a candidate's scientific publications have on his or her field than by the number of those publications. 
The information above, if accurate, argues most strongly against which of the following claims?
A. Even biomedical researchers who are just beginning their careers are expected already to have published articles of major significance to the field.
B. Contributions to the field of biomedical research are generally considered to be significant only if the work is published.
C. The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is sometimes taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers.
D. People responsible for hiring or promoting biomedical researchers can reasonably be expected to make a fair assessment of the overall impact of a candidate's publications on his or her field.
E. Biomedical researchers can substantially increase their chances of promotion by fragmenting their research findings so that they are published in several journals instead of one.

A. Of course if hiring is based on a candidate's scientific publications, "A" stands.
b. Again impact of a candidate's scientific publications means its a published work.
c. This may be an acceptable case.
d. We have to assume this.
e. Biomedical researchers can substantially increase their chances of promotion by fragmenting their research findings so that they are published in several journals instead of one.  It means that number of publications is more important in hirings and promotion than overall impact that a candidate's scientific publications have. The passage arguments go against this statement hence this is the correct answer......

1991sehwag · Answer

We have to attack the claim that - no. does not matter but quality matters

so , we must find something which says - no. does matters to justify the question

On checking the options , you can straight away eliminate all , but option E , which exactly mentions the same

ParthSanghavi · Answer

DmitryFarber

Request you to step in here.

Here is my understanding of the argument- 
Junior researchers believe that their chances of promotion lie on the number of publications they make (quantity over quality).
But the people who hire junior researchers prefer quality of the publications and it's impact over the no. of publications.

We need to find a statement that weakens this.

How does (E) weaken the argument?

also, could you explain why (B) is wrong?

KaranB1 · Answer

why c is not correct answer

GMATNinja

neeltamg · Answer

The passage deals with 2 different point of views on Hiring and Promotion (H&P) of medical researchers.

1. Junior Researchers view -> H&P depends on amount/ number of publications
2. Recruiters view -> H&P depends on impact of publication(s)

Claims that can be made, based on the above :

1. Junior researchers view is different from Recruiters view.
2. Impact matter more (or less) than number of publications in hiring decisions (assuming another premise states that)

The information above, if accurate, argues most strongly against which of the following claims?

Question asks us that the above data will most strongly oppose which of the conclusions provided. Any option that contradicts any inference that can be derived from the two premises will be a strong contender. This can be done using negation technique .

(A) Even biomedical researchers who are just beginning their careers are expected already to have published articles of major significance to the field.
  (Negation does not change anything. Out of scope)
 
(B) Contributions to the field of biomedical research are generally considered to be significant only if the work is published.
  (Deals with Published vs Unpublished work. Out of scope)
 
(C) The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is sometimes taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers.
  (Deals with importance of unpublished work. Irrelevant)
 
(D) People responsible for hiring or promoting biomedical researchers can reasonably be expected to make a fair assessment of the overall impact of a candidate's publications on his or her field.
  (Talks about the ability of recruiters. Out of Scope) 
(E) Biomedical researchers can substantially increase their chances of promotion by fragmenting their research findings so that they are published in several journals instead of one.
   ( This is CORRECT . Negate it and it directly falls in line with one of our conclusions)

emcheeks · Answer

Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and promotions depend significantly on the amount of their published work. People responsible for making hiring and promotion decisions in the biomedical research field, however, are influenced much more by the overall impact that a candidate's scientific publications have on his or her field than by the number of those publications.

The information above, if accurate, argues most strongly against which of the following claims?

"However" indicates that the conclusion is within or after this sentence. 
Here, the conclusion is that: promotion decisions in biomedical field is based more on impact than on number of publications. 
Prephrase: to weaken, we want: NOT based more on impact -> maybe based on number of publications more. (but note that there are just so many alternatives for weaken questions, but having a prephrase before looking at the answer choices is always helpful.

(A) Even biomedical researchers who are just beginning their careers are expected already to have published articles of major significance to the field.

"who are just beginning" refer to the "junior" in the stimulus. To say that they are expected to have significant articles is to mean this field sees impact/significance important which strengthens the argument.

(B) Contributions to the field of biomedical research are generally considered to be significant only if the work is published.

B talks about how to measure the significance of a work (only talks about impact/significance side of the conclusion), whereas the conclusion talks about impact vs. number.

(C) The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is sometimes taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers.

The entire stimulus only talks about  published  works. Therefore, not-yet-published works are irrelevant. 
 
(D) People responsible for hiring or promoting biomedical researchers can reasonably be expected to make a fair assessment of the overall impact of a candidate's publications on his or her field.

This could work as an additional premise for the stimulus. What it means is that: these hr people base their decisions on candidate's impact (which is assessed by these hr). It could only offer supporting premise/information for the stimulus rather than weaken it.

(E) Biomedical researchers can substantially increase their chances of promotion by fragmenting their research findings so that they are published in several journals instead of one.

"increase their chances of promotion" means that this way (fragmenting into more number of publications) is more decisive in the process of determining hiring and promotion, which is against the idea that impact is more decisive. 
Another way to look at this is to negate this:  Biomedical researchers  cannot  substantially increase their chances of promotion by fragmenting their research findings so that they are published in several journals instead of one. 
The negation strengthens the stimulus. Therefore, E correct.

pk6969 · Answer

As per the argument, it is mentioned that impact that publication has influences decision MUCH MORE than no. of publications. So, lets say impact has 60percent influence and no. of publications has 30 percent influence on hiring and promoting decision( impact still has much more influence). Now by increasing the number of articles, researchers can still substantially increase their chance.(30% weightage).
Please HELP.

GMATNinja · Answer

(E) does NOT indicate that publishing more articles with more findings is better than publishing fewer articles with fewer findings. Rather, it argues that publishing research findings across more articles is better THAN publishing those  same  research findings in one article. But the passage already stated that the impact of a publication is more important than the number of publications.

The problem is that publishing the same findings across multiple publications will likely diminish the impact of the publications. For that reason, given your example, while increasing the number of articles may help the 30% weight, it would hurt the 60% weight and thus be unlikely to significantly increase the researchers’ chances of promotion. Therefore, (E) is the best answer choice.

For more a fuller explanation of this question, check out our  previous post .

svasan05 · Answer

Hi

Your assumption of 30% influence is an arbitrary weightage which is not supported by the information given in the passage. Much more could be even 99-1 breakup. Therefore, it is best not to go down this path of reasoning.

Please note that option (E) says "researchers can  substantially  increase their chances of promotion". One can argue that whatever the weightage given to number of publications (whether 1% or 30%), the increase in chances of promotion will still be lesser than if a researcher increases the impact of her publications. Therefore, it is unlikely that the chances would increase "substantially" by splitting their findings to be published in multiple journals.

Hope this helps.

Raman109 · Answer

The argument says that - 
JBR assumes the amount of published work is important 
However, H&P decision-makers are influenced more by the impact of publication than the amount.

Option elimination - We need to find an option that goes against the information in the argument.

(A) Even biomedical researchers who are just beginning their careers are expected already to have published articles of major significance to the field. - it doesn't talk about the amount or significance of the publication.

(B) Contributions to the field of biomedical research are generally considered to be significant only if the work is published. - maybe true for Senior researchers, but we are concerned about JBRs. Moreover, for this option to be true the argument should have been - even the unpublished research is a decision criterion. Then this goes against but not in current construction.

(C) The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is sometimes taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers. - Good. But it doesn't talk about the amount or significance of the publication.

(D) People responsible for hiring or promoting biomedical researchers can reasonably be expected to make a fair assessment of the overall impact of a candidate's publications on his or her field. - out of scope. We don't know if its objective or subjective evaluation.

(E) Biomedical researchers can substantially increase their chances of promotion by fragmenting their research findings so that they are published in several journals instead of one. - exactly.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and

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

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and

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

My Rewards