Scientist: My peers have said that my theory regarding molecular cohes

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Answer: A

STEP 1: Read the question and identify your task.
This is a Strengthen question. It asks you to find the answer that weakens the argument least, or in other words, most strengthens the argument.

STEP 2: Read the argument with your task in mind.
The scientist argues that his peers’ statements that his theories are “based on sheer conjecture and have no experimental basis” are wrong because his theories are based on recent, reputable data. Although the scientist admits that he hasn’t read “every detail” of the information, he trusts the sources.

STEP 3: Know what you’re looking for.
The correct answer is a criticism that has little or no effect on discrediting the argument. As you review your answer choices, a process of elimination works best in this situation.

STEP 4: Read every word of every answer choice.
Answer A describes the basis of the conclusion as “uncertain recollections” even though the recollection does not seem uncertain at all. He refers to a specific study and use of the same research organizations. There is nothing uncertain about those recollections. Answer A seems like a good option. Considering answer B, if the experiments are affected by human error, then such a criticism would definitely weaken the scientist’s argument that the research supported the theory. Since the scientist argues that the experiments done by the research organizations are all that are necessary to support his theory, answer C would seriously weaken the argument by saying more support is necessary. Answer D calls into question the quality of the research, and since the scientist uses these studies as the sole support for the theory, this criticism most definitely weakens the scientist’s argument. Finally, if the logical pattern of using the lab’s results to support a theory does not work for the current theory, then the scientist’s argument is again weakened. Since answers B, C, D, and E all render the scientist’s argument vulnerable to further scrutiny, they can be eliminated, which means answer A is the correct choice.
_________________

Scientist: My peers have said that my theory regarding molecular cohesion in glass is based on sheer conjecture and has no experimental basis. This is simply not true. I’ve based my theory on several findings that have been published recently by reputable research organizations. Even though I have not reviewed every detail of their experiments, I am confident in their work. Besides, you may recall that I was asked to develop theories on molecular cohesion in wood fibers five years ago and I used findings from the same labs then as well.

OK, so here we have to find the options, which will make the argument vernarable to criticism.( 4 options)

The scientist’s argument is LEAST vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?


(A) It bases a conclusion about the scientific findings of the research organizations on uncertain recollections.Yes the author tries to base the decision on what he assumed 5 years ago. Eliminate

(B) It assumes that the experiments done by the research organizations are unaffected by bias or human error. : Yes as the author is blindly accepting that the experimental results are accurate. Eliminate B

(C) It assumes that the experiments done by the research organizations are the only work necessary to develop a scientific theory. No This is not the assumption made in the argument. Correct

(D) It hastily concludes that the experiments done by the research organizations are accurate, without having studied them in detail. Yes this is a true assumption made in the argument. Eliminate D

(E) It assumes that having in the past used the experiments done by the research organizations as a basis to develop a scientific theory justifies using them to develop the current theory. Yes this is another assumption which may be vernarable to criticism . Eliminate E

IMO C is correct

Posted from my mobile device

Premise:
1. theory is based on several findings that have been published recently by reputable research organizations.
2. Scientist has not reviewed every detail of their experiments but he is confident in their work
3. Scientist developed theories on molecular cohesion in wood fibers five years ago and he used findings from the same labs then as well.

Conclusion:
Peers saying scientist theory is based on sheer conjecture and has no experimental basis is not true.

We have to identify an option that makes the argument least vulnerable i.e. strengthens the argument. So, 4 other choices would weaken the argument.


(A) It bases a conclusion about the scientific findings of the research organizations on uncertain recollections..................What's uncertain recollection?? Reserach organizations did experiments and published findings. Not sure what does uncertain recollection means here. Let's keep it for a while.

(B) It assumes that the experiments done by the research organizations are unaffected by bias or human error.................This is actually weakening the argument. reject it.

(C) It assumes that the experiments done by the research organizations are the only work necessary to develop a scientific theory.................................This is weakening the argument.

(D) It hastily concludes that the experiments done by the research organizations are accurate, without having studied them in detail............................This is again weakening

(E) It assumes that having in the past used the experiments done by the research organizations as a basis to develop a scientific theory justifies using them to develop the current theory..............................This is weakening

Looks like A should be the OA. rest of the choices are weakening the argument.

Agree that we have to find the assumption that does not weaken scientist's theory

However, A said scientist created his "theory" based on these "scientific finding on uncertain recollections". The word "uncertain" carry a negative criticism on these "scientific finding" hence, weakening the scientist's theory in general

Other choice B, D, E, all seems to subtly or openly criticize the scientist's usage of these "scientific finding"

IMO, C does not strengthen or weaken the scientist's usage. It's unrelated whether scientist used these findings or any other method to develop his theory

Please somebody correct me if i'm wrong

I too chose C and got it wrong. However, the explanations here from Bunuel and from sj296 made sense to me.
Before jumping to answer choices focus on what's the ask. The questions asks to find and eliminate the answer choices that (if true) attack argument (make it vulnerable).
_________________

I was in doldrums between A and B, but unfortunately chose B.
At the first read, A seemed not the right answer as it somewhat weakens the argument. In C, since scientist took leverage of his/her previous theories based on the same research organization's findings that this time again his/her basis wouldn't falter. D and E are easy to eliminate.
B seemed perfect to me as bias and human error looked irrelevant, however, in a weakener question or strengthener question we need to find external factors also that can weaken.

I have highlighted two factors in red/green text in each choice - one signifies generic weakening word/s(assumes/bases) and other is actual logical factor behind that reasoning.

Hope this helps.

Answer A.
_________________