It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 04:47

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

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical [#permalink]

Show Tags

21 Jun 2006, 03:20
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical found in minute quantities in most drinking water had an adverse effect on the human nervous system. Existing scientific theory held that no such effect was possible because there was no neural mechanism for bringing it about. Several papers by well-known scientists in the field followed, unanimously purporting to prove Professor Smith wrong. This clearly shows that the scientific establishment was threatened by Professor Smith's work and conspired to discredit it.

Which one of the following is the central flaw in the argument given by the author of the passage?
(A) The author passes over the possibility that Professor Smith had much to gain should Professor Smith's discovery have found general acceptance.
(B) The author fails to mention whether or not Professor Smith knew that the existence of the alleged new effect was incompatible with established scientific theory.
(C) The author fails to show why the other scientists could not have been presenting evidence in order to establish the truth of the matter.
(D) The author neglects to clarify what his or her relationship to Professor Smith is.
(E) The author fails to indicate what, if any, effect the publication of Professor Smith's paper had on the public's confidence in the safety of most drinking water.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 937

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Location: France

Show Tags

21 Jun 2006, 04:46
C ..
_________________

I believe its yogurt!

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 162

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

22 Jun 2006, 05:46
Why not B?

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 78

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-Against new thinking [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Jun 2006, 06:06
quangviet512 wrote:
Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical found in minute quantities in most drinking water had an adverse effect on the human nervous system. Existing scientific theory held that no such effect was possible because there was no neural mechanism for bringing it about. Several papers by well-known scientists in the field followed, unanimously purporting to prove Professor Smith wrong. This clearly shows that the scientific establishment was threatened by Professor Smith's work and conspired to discredit it.

Which one of the following is the central flaw in the argument given by the author of the passage?
(A) The author passes over the possibility that Professor Smith had much to gain should Professor Smith's discovery have found general acceptance.
(B) The author fails to mention whether or not Professor Smith knew that the existence of the alleged new effect was incompatible with established scientific theory.
(C) The author fails to show why the other scientists could not have been presenting evidence in order to establish the truth of the matter.
(D) The author neglects to clarify what his or her relationship to Professor Smith is.
(E) The author fails to indicate what, if any, effect the publication of Professor Smith's paper had on the public's confidence in the safety of most drinking water.

Will go with C

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 788

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 0

Location: BULGARIA

Show Tags

22 Jun 2006, 06:20
i will stick to A)

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 790

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 2

Show Tags

22 Jun 2006, 11:48
A) The professor may have had much to gain, but what did the others have to lose?
B) Professor Smith's knowledge about the existing theory is not significant to the argument.
C) The answer. "Several papers by well-known scientists in the field followed, unanimously purporting to prove Professor Smith wrong. This clearly shows that the scientific establishment was threatened by Professor Smith's work and conspired to discredit it." The other papers may have been publishing the correct results! There is nothing to support the author's 'conspiracy theory'.
D) he was Professor Smith's great-great-grandfather... how does this matter!
E) Public opinion and confidence not being discussed.
_________________

Uh uh. I know what you're thinking. "Is the answer A, B, C, D or E?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 2

VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1257

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

22 Jun 2006, 11:53
(C) The author fails to show why the other scientists could not have been presenting evidence in order to establish the truth of the matter.

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 468

Kudos [?]: 136 [0], given: 0

Location: united states

Show Tags

23 Jun 2006, 15:07
B it is.

D and E are out.

A is out since nobody talked about any gains.

C is out. No evidences have been discussed.

Only an existing theory is mentioned. So, unless he presents evidences in the support of his paper, nobody is going to believe him. So, did he even know of the existing theory? Because if he did and still didn't provide any eveidence for his conlusion, he is a fake
_________________

for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..

Kudos [?]: 136 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1399

Kudos [?]: 222 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

23 Jun 2006, 15:35
Premises: Professor Smith published a paper arguing X. Scientific theory says that X isn't possible because of Y Papers followed to prove X is wrong.

Conclusion: scientific establishment was threatened by Professor Smith's work and conspired to discredit it. whats wrong here?

(A) should find acceptance or not... it is already been rejected, so have to explain that and not some hypothesis... if-> then

(B) knew or not... the Professor already published and bunch of the stuff followed, so it is irrelevant

(C) correct, all is mentioned is that everyone shouts X is wrong... no explanations or support to Y

(D) relationship? thats out of our interest

(E) we don't need public here at all... the issue is whether X is truth or not

C strongly holds

Kudos [?]: 222 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 497

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

24 Jun 2006, 06:39
This one looks like C - its the only one that shows the author ignoring a specific side of the argument.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 270

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 2

Show Tags

24 Jun 2006, 07:56
B looks correct.

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 2

24 Jun 2006, 07:56
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical

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

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.