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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
06 May 2020, 02:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
84% (01:54) correct
16%
(02:08)
wrong
based on 436
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
An anthropologist hypothesized that a certain medicinal power contained a significant amount of the deadly toxin T. When the test she performed for the presence of toxin T was negative, the anthropologist did not report the results. A chemist who nevertheless learned about the test results charged the anthropologist with fraud. The anthropologist, however, countered that those results were invalid because the power had inadvertently been test in acidic solution.
In the absence of the anthropologist’s reply, which one of the following principles, if established, would most support the chemist’s charge?
(A) Reporting results for an experiment that was not conducted and reporting a false result for an actual experiment are both instances of scientific fraud.
(B) Scientists can commit fraud and yet report some disconfirmations of their hypothesis.
(C) Scientists can neglect to report some disconfirmations of their hypotheses and yet be innocent of fraud.
(D) Scientists commit fraud whenever they report as valid any test result they know to be invalid.
(E) Scientists who neglect to report any experiment that could be interpreted as disconfirming their hypothesis have thereby committed fraud.
In the absence of the anthropologist’s reply, which one of the following principles, if established, would most support the chemist’s charge?
(A) Reporting results for an experiment that was not conducted and reporting a false result for an actual experiment are both instances of scientific fraud.
(B) Scientists can commit fraud and yet report some disconfirmations of their hypothesis.
(C) Scientists can neglect to report some disconfirmations of their hypotheses and yet be innocent of fraud.
(D) Scientists commit fraud whenever they report as valid any test result they know to be invalid.
(E) Scientists who neglect to report any experiment that could be interpreted as disconfirming their hypothesis have thereby committed fraud.
06 May 2020, 04:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
Option E .
Explanation:
If we remove anthropologist's reply/justification , what we are left with as the end result is : "A chemist who nevertheless learned about the test results charged the anthropologist with fraud." The question at hand is that how can we justify chemist's action ?
Important point to consider while answering - Anthropologist did not report the result . This rules out A,B and D . Now we are left with C and E
(C) Scientists can neglect to report some disconfirmations of their hypotheses and yet be innocent of fraud. -> We need to focus on a reasoning which would lead us to justify the claim that chemist's charge against anthropologist is valid. This one is indeed the opposite as it mentions "..yet be innocent of fraud"
(E) Scientists who neglect to report any experiment that could be interpreted as disconfirming their hypothesis have thereby committed fraud. -> From this it's clear that scientists who have not reported results which disconfirm their hypothesis (which is the case with the anthropologist) , have committed fraud and liable to be charged for it. This is the answer we are looking for!
Explanation:
If we remove anthropologist's reply/justification , what we are left with as the end result is : "A chemist who nevertheless learned about the test results charged the anthropologist with fraud." The question at hand is that how can we justify chemist's action ?
Important point to consider while answering - Anthropologist did not report the result . This rules out A,B and D . Now we are left with C and E
(C) Scientists can neglect to report some disconfirmations of their hypotheses and yet be innocent of fraud. -> We need to focus on a reasoning which would lead us to justify the claim that chemist's charge against anthropologist is valid. This one is indeed the opposite as it mentions "..yet be innocent of fraud"
(E) Scientists who neglect to report any experiment that could be interpreted as disconfirming their hypothesis have thereby committed fraud. -> From this it's clear that scientists who have not reported results which disconfirm their hypothesis (which is the case with the anthropologist) , have committed fraud and liable to be charged for it. This is the answer we are looking for!
TheStoryteller
Current Student
Joined: 25 Apr 2020
Last visit: 22 Feb 2025
Posts: 58
Given Kudos: 137
Location: India
Schools: Rice Jones '23 (M$)
GMAT 1: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q167 V163
GPA: 3
06 May 2020, 09:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
Option E. The anthropologist put forward a hypothesis that the Medical power contained the deadly toxin T. But when the results came negative she didn't report that test result. The chemist's accusation that the anthropologist is a fraud can be based on the argument(E)--Scientists who neglect to report any experiment that could be interpreted as disconfirming their hypothesis have thereby committed fraud.
