Scientist: Physicists claim that their system of careful peer review p

Scientist: Physicists claim that their system of careful peer review prevents scientific fraud in physics effectively. But biologists claimed the same thing for their field 20 years ago, and they turned out to be wrong. Since then, biologists have greatly enhanced their discipline’s safeguards against scientific fraud, thus preventing further major incidents. It would be conducive to progress in physics if physicists were to do the same thing.

Understand :
Physic claim : our system prevents scientific fraud
premise : Bios claimed the same thing 20 yrs ago but were no good
premise : since then , bios improved their system and now they are prety good

Conclusion : IF physis were to improve their systems , THEN it would be gret to PROGRESS IN PHYSIS !!


Think : We are told that physys say their systme is good ..but bios also said the same thing before but were no good and then they imprved that stuff and thyere good now!! so author says physis shoudl also imporve !!
See the conclusion is "conditional" (if...then...) this measn that :"if we improve , then this will happen" ...but what if the result will still be there even if we dont apply the casue or condition?? what if we eliminate the "if " part ? what if we dont need imporve,ets?? can we still progress? Yes maybe !!
firstly do we know that the CURRENT system is no good?? NO
Secondly, what if doing all these improvements or even caring for scientific fraud is a MUST for progress in physis?
See the argumnet talks about scientific fraud and the conclsudin is about "prgress in physy:"
Do we have a direct link between "fraud" and "progress" ??? do we know that 2 are directly or nversely relateld??? NO ...please do not think that this is implicit !!! author has clearly made an assumption here !!!

Assumptions :
1. The CURRENT SYSTEM of physis is NO GOOD
2. We need to give a damn about frauds if we want to progress !!!
3. The comparison between physis system and bio system is valid

The conclusion of the scientist’s argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following is assumed?


(B) Very few incidents of even minor scientific fraud have occurred in biology over the last 20 years.
- dont care abou the biology !! we might try to make a point by saying if we improve system we might get similar results with ohys sysmen too !! but n such link is given !

(C) No system of careful peer review is completely effective in preventing scientific fraud in any scientific discipline.
- The author never even indulges in proving there is a need for completely efefedtve stuff

(D) Twenty years ago the system of peer review in biology was less effective in preventing scientific fraud than the system of peer review in physics is today.
- This is an extension of already given info in the argument !!! does not provide any conncetion to concusion

(E) Over the years, there have been relatively few, if any, major incidents of scientific fraud in physics.[/quote]
- Weakens !!! if there are no major incient then why do we need to imporve?? so the conclusion breaks with respect t "if we improve ..we can progress"