Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Dec 1207:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Join the conversation to learn more about INSEAD vs LBS
Dec 1310:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Have you ever wondered how to score a PERFECT 805 on the GMAT? Meet Julia, a banking professional who used the Target Test Prep course to achieve this incredible feat. Julia's story is nothing short of an inspiration.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.- Dec 15
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. - Dec 16
08:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes! - Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
patto
Joined: 22 Jun 2017
Last visit: 09 Jul 2021
Posts: 237
Given Kudos: 149
Location: Argentina
Schools: HBS '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '25
GMAT 1: 630 Q43 V34
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36 (Online)
Products:
15 Feb 2019, 11:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
46% (02:13) correct
54%
(02:15)
wrong
based on 272
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
The conclusion of the scientist’s argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Major incidents of scientific fraud in a scientific discipline are deleterious to progress in that discipline.
(B) Very few incidents of even minor scientific fraud have occurred in biology over the last 20 years.
(C) No system of careful peer review is completely effective in preventing scientific fraud in any scientific discipline.
(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.
(E) Over the years, there have been relatively few, if any, major incidents of scientific fraud in physics.
The conclusion of the scientist’s argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Major incidents of scientific fraud in a scientific discipline are deleterious to progress in that discipline.
(B) Very few incidents of even minor scientific fraud have occurred in biology over the last 20 years.
(C) No system of careful peer review is completely effective in preventing scientific fraud in any scientific discipline.
(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.
(E) Over the years, there have been relatively few, if any, major incidents of scientific fraud in physics.
AdityaHongunti
Posts: 555
17 Feb 2019, 00:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
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?
- 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"
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?
Quote:
(A) Major incidents of scientific fraud in a scientific discipline are deleterious to progress in that discipline.
- assumption 2
(B) Very few incidents of even minor scientific fraud have occurred in biology over the last 20 years.- assumption 2
- 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"
06 Nov 2019, 08:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
patto
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.
The conclusion of the scientist’s argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Major incidents of scientific fraud in a scientific discipline are deleterious to progress in that discipline.
(B) Very few incidents of even minor scientific fraud have occurred in biology over the last 20 years.
(C) No system of careful peer review is completely effective in preventing scientific fraud in any scientific discipline.
(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.
(E) Over the years, there have been relatively few, if any, major incidents of scientific fraud in physics.
The conclusion of the scientist’s argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Major incidents of scientific fraud in a scientific discipline are deleterious to progress in that discipline.
(B) Very few incidents of even minor scientific fraud have occurred in biology over the last 20 years.
(C) No system of careful peer review is completely effective in preventing scientific fraud in any scientific discipline.
(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.
(E) Over the years, there have been relatively few, if any, major incidents of scientific fraud in physics.
ARGUMENT
[prem] P claims that their system prevents fraud; But, B also claimed that, and they were wrong;
[prem] Since then, B has enhanced its system, thus preventing major incidents;
[con] Therefore, it would be good for progress in Physics if P did the same;
[asum] If B prevents major incidents, then, B shows progress; So if P does the same, P shows progress.
(B) irrelevant
(C) even if all the systems are not 100% effective at preventing fraud, at least SOME could be effective; so this could actually weaken the argument, if Ps system was 100% effective;
(D) irrelevant;
(E) irrelevant;
Answer (A): if major incidents don't prevent progress, then the argument would fall.
