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

Question

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.

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.

(B) It assumes that the experiments done by the research organizations are unaffected by bias or human error.

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

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

(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.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

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.

SohGMAT2020 · Answer

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

sj296 · Answer

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.

lonesomelad · Answer

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

TheGraceful · Answer

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).

unraveled · Answer

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.

AnkitNandwani1 · Answer

Choice 
 What it says 
 Does it apply to the argument? 
 Keep or Eliminate 
 
   (A)  Bases conclusion on  uncertain recollections  
 Suggests the scientist is recalling experimental details inaccurately. 
 The scientist doesn’t rely on memory of experimental results — they rely on  published findings . The only “recollection” is about having used these labs before, but that’s not central to the argument. 
 ❌ Does  not  apply → This is the correct answer (LEAST vulnerable). 
 
   (B)  Assumes experiments are unaffected by bias/error 
 Scientist accepts the findings without skepticism. If the experiments were flawed, the theory’s basis collapses. 
 Very plausible vulnerability. 
 Eliminate 
 
   (C)  Assumes these experiments are the  only  work needed for a theory 
 Scientist claims theory is valid just because it’s based on these labs, ignoring need for independent verification. 
 Vulnerability fits. 
 Eliminate 
 
   (D)  Hastily concludes accuracy without reviewing details 
 Scientist admits not having reviewed every detail but still trusts results. This is directly stated. 
 Clear vulnerability. 
 Eliminate 
 
   (E)  Assumes past reliance on same labs justifies current reliance 
 “I used them 5 years ago for wood fibers” → appeals to past trust. That’s a weak justification. 
 Valid criticism. 
 Eliminate

RiyaJ0032 · Answer

Option C has no where been implied by the stem, I do not understand how have you taken it to be relevant to the stem

You are saying "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", but the scientists does not anywhere say that research organizations are the only way to support his theory

he is supporting his theory taking the support of scientific findings by research organizations

but no where does he imply that is the only way to support his theory

can someone please help with this

both A and C are debatable

DmitryFarber  - please help
 KarishmaB 
 Mannisha

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

Not a single one of these answer choices is of sufficient quality to serve as a correct description of a flaw.  RiyaJ0032  is right about C--the author doesn't say nothing else is needed than these experiments, and in any case, that wouldn't have relevance to the conclusion, which is about whether the theory has an experimental basis. At no point is the author arguing that their theory is perfect and must be correct! But it's not just C; they're all like that. For instance, the author never claims that the existing evidence has no possibility of error, so B is not describing a flaw in the argument.

D and E might seem better, but they still have serious problems. The author says they didn't look at EVERY detail, but that doesn't mean they didn't study the work in detail. Those just don't mean the same thing! And while E makes a lot of sense, it again fails to address the actual conclusion. That gets back to the messy nature of the original argument. The last sentence is not a great support for their point, but undermining it doesn't do much either. Since the conclusion is just that the theory IS based on experiment and is not just conjecture, it simply doesn't matter whether the past use of these labs justifies their current use.

Quick tip: If you see a question written in the first person ("I," "my"), skip it! (We do sometimes see first person on quality questions from the LSAT, but this is no LSAT question!)

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

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

Choice	What it says	Does it apply to the argument?	Keep or Eliminate
(A) Bases conclusion on uncertain recollections	Suggests the scientist is recalling experimental details inaccurately.	The scientist doesn’t rely on memory of experimental results — they rely on published findings. The only “recollection” is about having used these labs before, but that’s not central to the argument.	❌ Does not apply → This is the correct answer (LEAST vulnerable).
(B) Assumes experiments are unaffected by bias/error	Scientist accepts the findings without skepticism. If the experiments were flawed, the theory’s basis collapses.	Very plausible vulnerability.	Eliminate
(C) Assumes these experiments are the only work needed for a theory	Scientist claims theory is valid just because it’s based on these labs, ignoring need for independent verification.	Vulnerability fits.	Eliminate
(D) Hastily concludes accuracy without reviewing details	Scientist admits not having reviewed every detail but still trusts results. This is directly stated.	Clear vulnerability.	Eliminate
(E) Assumes past reliance on same labs justifies current reliance	“I used them 5 years ago for wood fibers” → appeals to past trust. That’s a weak justification.	Valid criticism.	Eliminate

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

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