GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

It is currently 29 Feb 2020, 00:06

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 677
Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2013, 01:22
8
1
69
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (01:54) correct 34% (02:10) wrong based on 1484 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack

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.

Would C be a contender if the word "sometimes" isn't there?
Most Helpful Expert Reply
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
P
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2984
Re: Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2013, 02:21
13
8
fozzzy wrote:
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.

Would C be a contender if the word "sometimes" isn't there?


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
_________________
Most Helpful Community Reply
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 976
Location: United States
Re: Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2013, 13:40
11
4
smartmanav wrote:
whats wrong with B here ?
Argument talks about impact of published scientific articles, so B is also against what argument said.


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.
General Discussion
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1002
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2013, 01:37
4
2
fozzzy wrote:
Would C be a contender if the word "sometimes" isn't there?


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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Posts: 31
Re: Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2013, 12:39
whats wrong with B here ?
Argument talks about impact of published scientific articles, so B is also against what argument said.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2013
Posts: 36
Re: Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Nov 2013, 05:43
1
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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 51
Re: Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2014, 05:56
Nilabh_s wrote:
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.



Well, you got the first part right: quality > quantity.

Now, focus on how this argument can be destroyed. And, keep it simple. Anything that focuses on the works themselves, and aids researchers in landing jobs outside of the quality of their publications --- will hurt the author's argument.

To your point: what if everyone has the same quality? That's not what Choice A is really saying :)

Choice A focuses on Researchers (not all) who are just beginning their careers, having already published articles of great significance. Tho a little tempting because of the key words it uses, Choice A is not in the ballpark of the conclusion.

The conclusion focuses on the publications themselves, and the quality (significance) of the publicized works --- and, how this all helps researchers land jobs.

Choice C tells us how researchers can get jobs outside of the quality of their works.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 43
Schools: IIMA
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2014, 04:19
If you look at below bold part , answer is clearly E

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.

and look now at option E :)

Hope that helps :)
_________________
If you are not over prepared then you are under prepared !!!
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Posts: 39
Location: United States
Schools: Kellogg '17, ISB '17
GMAT Date: 05-20-2015
GPA: 3.06
WE: Business Development (Commercial Banking)
Re: Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Mar 2015, 09:05
2
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
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Jun 2019
Posts: 9
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2019, 02:03
1
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)
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 20 Oct 2018
Posts: 225
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
CAT Tests
Re: Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Dec 2019, 02:28
Quote:

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?


Argument -
Junior researchers - Hiring and promotions are dependent on the number of published works - higher the number of publications = higher the chances of promotion / hiring
People responsible for hiring - The impact of publications, rather than the number of publications are a significant contributor = the number of citations than the number of publications

Question - the correct choice must go against the final claim. That is, the option must support that the impact of publication does not play an important role

(A) Even biomedical researchers who are just beginning their careers are expected already to have published articles of major significance to the field.
- The argument does not say anything about the beginners
-Wrong

(B) Contributions to the field of biomedical research are generally considered to be significant only if the work is published.
- The argument focuses on the what the junior researchers / people responsible for hiring value. The current choice is far too generalized
- Wrong

(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.
- We do not know whether the not-yet-published work is taken into account. The last sentence mentions only about the "impact of published works".
- Wrong

(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.
- The last sentence says that the people responsible for hiring base their decision on the impact. If these people cannot make reasonable fair assessment of the impact - they cannot base their decisions on the mentioned parameter. Thus this statement has to be true for the claim to be true. Thus the statement in fact supports the claim.
But, the question focuses on the claim that will go against the argument
- Wrong

(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.
- So this choice asks the beginners to increase their publications.
- The choice states that such action will not be beneficial as long as the action does not increase the impact of the the publication.
- Thus this statement asks the researchers to do exactly what argument opposes
- Correct
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and   [#permalink] 14 Dec 2019, 02:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne