There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially con

Question

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.
(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.
(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.
(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.
(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

ChrisLele · Accepted Answer

The conclusion: no official confirmation of scientific work is not a problem because replication will sort out any inconsistencies.

Any answer choice that shows the replication process is somehow faulty will be sufficient to weaken the conclusion.

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.

If (A) is true, then the potential inconsistencies can go undetected for years. Such an occurrence can be very harmful. Essentially, erroneous information is being bandied about for years before any follow-up experiments can show this to be the case. Therefore, replication can only be successful if it is actually employed, and (A) successfully weakens the conclusion.

(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.

This does not address the argument.

(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.

This answer choice would strengthen the argument, if anything. Even less need for confirmation.

(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.

While this may be true, the argument contends that replication will take care of this careless reporting.

(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

This does not address the argument.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

This question asks us to weaken the argument. Typically, to solve such questions, you need to show that a suppressed premise is not likely to be true. The assumption of the argument is that before shoddy scientific work can do harm it will be exposed by the work of other scientists. Look at choice (A). It directly attacks this assumption by stating that years can pass before the false work is exposed.  The answer is (A).

kripalkavi · Answer

Give me A! 
- B, C Irrelevant. 
 B: Quite obviously
 C: The fact that most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to replication does not say whether unconfirmed results are harmful or not.
- D Irrelevant comparison
- E : I took awhile to eliminate this. But I guess this strengthens the argument. If most scientists work is teams then they could already be verifying each others results. So no need for explicit replication. I know this is a bit far fetched but it  does not weaken  the argument for sure!

OldFritz · Answer

Straight A.

If scientists' work can go on for several years without being verified? Then that weakens the assertion that scientists' work should not be scrutinized.

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz.

JarvisR · Answer

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. 
 
P1: There is  a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists . 
P2: Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. 
P3: It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.

Which one of the following, if true, would  weaken  the argument?

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.
 
(B) Most scientists work in universities, where  their work is submitted to peer review before publication .
>>Strengthen. 
(C) Most scientists are  under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication .
>>Strengthen
(D) In scientific experiments,  careless reporting is more common than fraud .
>> Irrelevant.
(E) Most scientists  work as part of a team rather than alone .
>> Irrelevant

gmater12 · Answer

Could anyone please explain further on this??

There is no mention of any time frame on any of the premises.

Can someone also specify what is wrong with option E?

Can the "other" scientists mentioned in the premise not be part of the group??

Specter · Answer

In "Weaken" questions - The idea is to attack the argument - i.e. conclusion. Always write the goal of the weakening. The goal in this case is : There is a reason that the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published.

This reason (one of the possible reasons) is highlighted in option A. Option E only mentions that scientists work as a part of team rather than alone. This aspect doesn't give any reason for the scientists' work to be officially confirmed. (Working as a part of team can lead of confirmation or disconfirmation of the work. No clear cut position)

Hope this helps.

sairam595 · Answer

Can Someone explain why option C is Incorrect!

Abhishek009 · Answer

Option (C) States scientists are under pressure , there can be 2 possible outcomes of working under pressure -

1. Scientists can be cautious of their work , be very careful and produce accurate results.
  2. Scientists can go unnerved and commit some errors.

If scientists are cautious of their work , very careful then there is no need of scrutinizing of replication of their work, however if they are go unnerved and commit errors then it needs to be checked and requires replication by other scientists before they are published.

This option doesn't produce a way way answer ( whether there is requirement/replication of experiments by scientists ) hence we can negate this answer.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. - Conclusion. It says, "There is no reason to do this."
There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. - Supporting premise. 
Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. - Fact 
It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results. - Opinion and supporting premise.

Option Elimination - Weaken

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated. - If this is the case, then this is a big reason. Ok. 
(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication. - Strengthener. 
(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication. - Strengthener. If they are under pressure to ensure that it can be replicated, they'll do everything beforehand to ensure it's correct. So, there is no reason for the official confirmation. 
(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud. - This comparison is out of scope. 
(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone. - Strengthener.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially con

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially con

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards