It is currently 17 Nov 2017, 12:38

### 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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 308

Kudos [?]: 461 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2010, 10:51
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

71% (01:43) correct 29% (01:54) wrong based on 89 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by broall on 15 Jun 2017, 04:04, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 461 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 111 [0], given: 12

Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2010, 10:58
(A) The author passes over the possibility that Professor Smith had much to gain should Professor Smith’s discovery have found general acceptance.
>> This is talking about prof. Smith's advatages. Not relevant for the conclusion.
(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.
>> Not relevant.
(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.
>> Yes. This is the point that is missing int he authors argument.
(D) The author neglects to clarify what his or her relationship to Professor Smith is.
>> Not relevant.
(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.
>> Not relevant.

Kudos [?]: 111 [0], given: 12

Manager
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Posts: 187

Kudos [?]: 150 [0], given: 6

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

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2010, 21:23
Same explanation

Kudos [?]: 150 [0], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 162

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 5

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

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2010, 22:08
lsat question seems to be tricky is it generally the case or am I seeing only the trickier questions?

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 09 Jan 2010
Posts: 124

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 12

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

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2010, 12:22
why not B?plsexplain

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 12

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 347

Kudos [?]: 1681 [4], given: 11

Location: San Francisco
Re: Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2010, 17:45
4
KUDOS
Hey All,

Though the correct answer has been distinguished and partially explained, I feel that there's room to look a bit deeper. And isn't that what we're all here to do?

Conclusion: Scientists were threatened and trying to discredit theory
Premise: Smith published paper that disagreed with other scientists, those scientists are trying to prove it wrong
Assumption: The scientists don't have any other reason to prove it wrong but to discredit it

Notice that this assumption falls into an "eliminate alternate paths" category. Basically, we're told that something is happening, and then directed towards the reason why. But there is no justification for that reason, so we would need an assumption that eliminates other possible reasons. The correct answer will inevitably take advantage of this.

(A) The author passes over the possibility that Professor Smith had much to gain should Professor Smith’s discovery have found general acceptance.
PROBLEM: What we care about is the intentions of the other scientists, not of Professor Smith himself.

(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.
PROBLEM: Once again, the conclusion here relates to the OTHER scientists, not Smith himself. Whether or not Smith knew if his research was faulty or not doesn't affect the intentions of the other scientists.

(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.
ANSWER: This establishes that the other scientists could have had some motive other than petty payback.

(D) The author neglects to clarify what his or her relationship to Professor Smith is.
PROBLEM: This is entirely out of scope. We don't need to know where the author comes into things.

(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.
PROBLEM: Out of scope again. We care about Smith and the other scientists, not the public.

Hope that helps!

-t
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Kudos [?]: 1681 [4], given: 11

Intern
Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 3

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

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

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2010, 03:06
@Tommy

Sorry but I am going to probe this a little further since I am unable to comprehend the solution completely...

In the argument, the author states that the opposing scientists published several papers to prove the professors conclusion wrong.

If the above is true then how can we state that the author fails to show evidence that establishes the truth of the matter?

They have in fact published papers to prove the professor wrong.

Please correct me if I am wrong here..

Cheers
Sid

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

Intern
Joined: 20 May 2010
Posts: 25

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

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

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2010, 19:52
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
i choose C , very hard Q

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

Intern
Joined: 04 Nov 2009
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2010, 21:14
C

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 926

Kudos [?]: 1543 [0], given: 40

WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Re: Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2010, 21:44
IMO A.

(A) The author passes over the possibility that Professor Smith had much to gain should Professor Smith’s discovery have found general acceptance.
[Looks close contender. It is touching the threat to the scientists. Professor would be selected for patents, noble prize...]

(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. [Professor argued in his paper. So, this choice is ruled out]

(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.
[I didnt find this choice convincing as no indication is given above on the truth of the matter. I second what Sidhus said. Other scientists did published papers to prove him wrong. Incorrect]

(D) The author neglects to clarify what his or her relationship to Professor Smith is.
[Out of scope]

(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.
[This looks a SHELL GAME Fallacy. Out of scope]
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Kudos [?]: 1543 [0], given: 40

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 347

Kudos [?]: 1681 [1], given: 11

Location: San Francisco
Re: Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2010, 13:08
1
KUDOS
Hey Siddus,

The issue isn't that there isn't proof that they published papers against it. The conclusion is that the REASON they published those papers was because they were threatened and trying to discredit it. That's why the answer is C, which suggests that maybe they published the paper because they honestly disagreed, rather than because they had nefarious motives. : )

-tommy
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Kudos [?]: 1681 [1], given: 11

Intern
Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 3

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

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

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2010, 07:03
Thank you Tommy, you are correct I misunderstood the argument.

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

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10143

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

21 Jun 2015, 12:27
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10143

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2016, 03:11
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Re: Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical   [#permalink] 04 Oct 2016, 03:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by