| GMAT Club Forum https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/ |
|
| Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing importan https://gmatclub.com/forum/generally-scientists-enter-their-field-with-the-goal-of-doing-importan-61399-20.html |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | AnishPassi [ 08 Sep 2022, 05:24 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing importan |
The Story Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research and accept as their colleagues those with similar motivation. Generally scientists become scientists with a particular goal. They wish to do important new research. They are fine to partner with other scientists who also have the same goal. (So perhaps they are not fine to partner with scientists who do not have the same goal.) Therefore, when any scientist wins renown as an expounder of science to general audiences, most other scientists conclude that this popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague. If a scientist explains science to general audiences, and, as a result, earns fame, other scientists stop treating him as a ‘true colleague’. Who would the scientists consider to be a ‘true colleague’? For that we’ll need to relate this statement to the previous one. A ‘true colleague’ would be a scientist who also shares the goal of doing important new research. The Logic: Scientists: We wish to do important new research. We expect similar motivation from our colleagues. Therefore, we wouldn’t want to work with a scientist who earns fame by being a popularizer of science. Why not? They must believe that a scientist who earns fame for explaining things to the general public (a popularizer) cannot have the same motivation to do important new research. Question Stem The explanation offered above for the low esteem in which scientific popularizers are held by research scientists assumes that “Low esteem”: ‘this popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague’ Research scientists hold scientific popularizers in low esteem. What’s the explanation offered for this? That’s in the first sentence: Scientists are ok to accept as their colleagues scientists who also have a goal of doing important new research. Question: What do the scientists assume to decide that if a scientist is a popularizer, he can’t be a true colleague? They must believe that a scientist who earns fame for explaining things to the general public (a popularizer) cannot have the same motivation to do important new research. Framework: The correct answer will strengthen the explanation, and, without it, the explanation will break down. Answer Choice Analysis (A) serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues Incorrect. Statement: Serious scientific research relies on cooperation among scientists. That’s fine. The argument is about whether scientists may consider a popularizer a true colleague. This statement has no impact on the argument and, thus, is not an assumption. Also, consider the following option: A’. serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation between scientists and the general public What impact does this statement have on the above explanation? If serious scientific research relies on cooperation between scientists and the general public, perhaps scientists should still consider a popularizer a true colleague. This answer choice weakens the argument. (B) research scientists tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy Incorrect. How about the following option first: (B’) research scientists envy the renown of scientific popularizers, and they tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy This option weakens the given explanation. This one brings in another perspective – maybe the popularizers could still be ‘true colleagues’, just that other scientists do not wish to work with them because the popularizers are famous. Now in the original answer choice, we have no idea whether other scientists envy the popularizers. Thus the option has no impact on the argument, and, thus, can’t be an assumption. (C) a scientist can become a famous popularizer without having completed any important research Incorrect. What kind of a scientist can become a famous popularizer is not relevant to the argument. No impact. (D) research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research Correct. This one fits. This is in line with my initial understanding. If research scientists believe that the popularizers do not share the same goal of doing important new research, they would not consider the popularizers ‘true colleagues’. This statement supports the reasoning. Negation: research scientists do not believe that those who are well know as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research In that case, the explanation will cease to explain the conclusion. (E) no important new research can be accessible to or accurately assessed by those who are not themselves scientists Incorrect. No impact. What research non-scientists can access or assess is irrelevant to the argument. |
|
| Author: | aayushlovelife [ 03 Nov 2022, 00:01 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing importan |
Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research and accept as their colleagues those with similar motivation. Therefore, when any scientist wins renown as an expounder of science to general audiences, most other scientists conclude that this popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague. The explanation offered above for the low esteem in which scientific popularizers are held by research scientists assumes that (A) serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues (B) research scientists tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy (C) a scientist can become a famous popularizer without having completed any important research (D) research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research (E) no important new research can be accessible to or accurately assessed by those who are not themselves scientists[/quote] From passage we understand the following gist: When doing the work, all scientists regard each other as colleagues with having the same motivation of doing new research. Scientists that are categorised as popularizers to general audiences are not considered colleagues anymore. From first statement we understand that for scientists the "motivation" behind the research work is a key component of being regarded as a true colleague. Thus to make the conclusion that popularizer scientist should not be treated as a true colleague, the author assumes that the intention or motivation behind that scientist is now different form doing new research. However, in real life if you can see, there are renowned scientists who popularize research to spread awareness and knowledge which could be good intentions. There could be others but this one just jumped out. Now reading options, A) This option doesn't connect well with the conclusion, or does not explain in any way why the popularizer is no more a true colleague. B) Here the reason for change in mindset towards the popularizer scientist is given as envy. However, the passage talks about all popularizers and not only those that the other scientists envy. This option leaves out scope for those popularisers whom the other scientists don't envy, yet according to passage they would also not be considered true colleagues. C) We already know that by saying "no longer be regarded a true colleague" the author implies at some point in time in past they were true colleagues. Which would mean that they did do research work before. Also the importance of the research is not really relevant here. D) This options hits right at the core important issue of motivation behind actions and transition of a colleague scientist into a popularizer scientist. Correct option. E) Not related to the scope of the conclusion in any way, not an assumption necessary for conclusion to hold. |
|
| Author: | NipunBagaria [ 21 Jan 2023, 16:22 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing importan |
Cannot understand the argument and the question stem |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|