Scientists typically do their most creative work before the age of for

Can someone please explain how first provides evidence to support an explanation that the argument favors.?

Let's start by identifying the author's conclusion:

• "the studies’ finding strongly suggests that the real reason why scientists over forty rarely produce highly creative work is not that they have aged but rather that scientists over forty have generally spent too long in their field."

Here's how the author reaches this conclusion:

• Scientists typically do their most creative work before the age of 40.
• The majority of scientists who reach age 40 have been working in their field for at least 15 years (i.e., they entered their field at age 25 or younger).
• There are atypical scientists who produce highly creative work after they've turned 40.
• Studies show that a disproportionately large number of these atypical scientists entered their field at an older age than is usual. Unlike the majority of scientists, they have likely been working in their field for fewer than 15 years. This provides an alternate explanation for creative work in a given scientific field: being relatively new to that field.
• Therefore, these studies suggest that the loss of creative capacity in scientists is caused by spending a long their in the same field, not simply by aging.

The author argues that the commonly held explanation ("aging by itself brings about a loss of creative capacity") is wrong.

• The first boldface statement is evidence (i.e. study results) that identifies an alternate cause of highly creative work: being relatively new to the field. As explained in this post, this alternate cause is the explanation that the argument favors.
• The second boldface statement incorporates that evidence into an alternate explanation for the loss of creative capacity: spending too long in a given field. This explanation is part of the author's argument against the commonly held thought.

I hope this helps!

I suggest you use following strategy:
1. Identify the Conclusion
2. Prething/ Identify role of each sentence from the argument above
3. Analyze options

My Notes:
1. MCW = done <40 yrs. Because Age = Loss of C
2. HCW after 40 = Those scientist who entered field late
3. Thus, it is not loss of age but spending 15 yrs (too long) = loss of creativity

What is main conclusion:
--> Scientist>40 = rare creativity
Why?
--> spending too long = loss of creativity
Instead?
--> Age

Let's look at bold face sentences:
1. of scientists who produce highly creative work beyond the age of forty, a disproportionately large number entered their field at an older age than is usual.
it is just a piece of information/ fact that supports final conclusion

2. scientists over forty have generally spent too long in their field.
this is an answer to our above question 'why?' = explanation!

Let's look into answer choices:
A. 1st = Claim & 2nd = conclusion
B. 1st = Objection on position & 2nd = that position
C. 1st = evidence to support explanation & 2nd = that explanation
D. 1st = evidence to support explanation & 2nd = another explanation that is opporsite of 1st one
E. 1st = evidence to support explanation & 2nd = that explanation

From the above list, I can easily mark out A, B, and D
Now what I have is C & E. On looking closely, I can see difference below:
C. 1st = evidence to support explanation (that argument challenges) & 2nd = that explanation
E. 1st = evidence to support explanation (that argument favors) & 2nd = that explanation

the argument is not challenging an explanation that 'spending long time results in loss of creativity', rather it is supporting it. The explanation that has been questioned is not a boldface - 'age results in loss of creativity'

I got the correct answer. Just want to make sure I fully understand it: the conclusion of this argument is: 'Since by the age of forty the large majority of scientists have been working in their field for at least fifteen years, the studies' finding strongly suggests that the real reason why scientists over forty rarely produce highly creative work is not that they have aged but rather that scientists over forty have generally spent too long in their field.' And the second part is 'explanation that the argument favors' and is also a part of the conclusion. Right? Thank you!

I probably wouldn't consider "Since by the age of forty the large majority of scientists have been working in their field for at least fifteen years" part of the conclusion... that part is really a fact that leads up to the conclusion ("the studies’ finding strongly suggests that the real reason why scientists over forty rarely produce highly creative work is not that they have aged but rather that scientists over forty have generally spent too long in their field.").

Otherwise, your understanding seems to be correct!

HI all, Can help me with the follow

that the argument challenges - does that mean the author disagrees?
that the argument favors - does that mean the author agrees?


And what does "the explanation that the argument seeks to establish"?

Yes, you're on the right track! To "challenge" an explanation means to argue against that explanation. To "favor" an explanation, on the other hand, means to support or agree with that explanation.

I hope that helps!

Understanding the argument -
Scientists typically do their most creative work before the age of forty. - Fact
It is commonly thought that this happens because aging by itself brings about a loss of creative capacity. - Fact. Reason for the first fact. The argument later challenges this explanation.
However, studies show that of scientists who produce highly creative work beyond the age of forty, a disproportionately large number entered their field at an older age than is usual. - Fact + Claim to challenge the above reasoning.
Since by the age of forty the large majority of scientists have been working in their field for at least fifteen years, the studies’ finding strongly suggests that the real reason why scientists over forty rarely produce highly creative work is not that they have aged but rather that scientists over forty have generally spent too long in their field. - Supporting premise + conclusion - not earlier reason but the alternate reasoning (2nd BF is alternate reasoning.

Option Elimination -

(A) The first is a claim (ok), the accuracy of which is at issue in the argument (No, the accuracy of the first claim is not at issue); the second is a conclusion drawn on the basis of that claim (ok) - overall no.

(B) The first is an objection that has been raised against a position defended in the argument (No, both the BF go in the same direction); the second is that position. (ok) - Overall, no.

(C) The first is evidence that has been used to support an explanation that the argument challenges (No. The argument challenges the earlier reasoning, and the first BF challenges that and does not support it); the second is that explanation. (No. the 2nd is not an explanation that the argument challenges) - No.

(D) The first is evidence that has been used to support an explanation that the argument challenges; (No. The argument challenges the earlier reasoning, and the first BF challenges that and does not support it) the second is a competing explanation that the argument favors. (ok) - overall no.

(E) The first provides evidence to support an explanation that the argument favors; (ok) the second is that explanation. (ok)