Critical Reasoning

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.

OA after some discussion.

ankur.agrawal wrote: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.

OA after some discussion.

The conclusion is that there is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed - since poor scientific work will e exposed and rendered harmless by other scientists replicating the experiments. If we wish to weaken this argument, we need to find some flaw in this plan - some reason why confirmation by replication is not good enough to make sure that scientists do a good job, and official confirmation needs to be performed. A gives you that reason - in the time it takes for peer scientists to get around to replicate the experiment and expose the errors the original scientists had committed, their original publication is taken as science, and may cause harm. Therefore, it is necessary to confirm the work before it is published, to prevent poor science from harming others in the few years before it is challenged and removed. Answer is A.

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:

ankur.agrawal wrote: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.

OA after some discussion.

The conclusion is that there is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed - since poor scientific work will e exposed and rendered harmless by other scientists replicating the experiments. If we wish to weaken this argument, we need to find some flaw in this plan - some reason why confirmation by replication is not good enough to make sure that scientists do a good job, and official confirmation needs to be performed. A gives you that reason - in the time it takes for peer scientists to get around to replicate the experiment and expose the errors the original scientists had committed, their original publication is taken as science, and may cause harm. Therefore, it is necessary to confirm the work before it is published, to prevent poor science from harming others in the few years before it is challenged and removed. Answer is A.

Thanks Geva. Your explanation was fantastic.

Hello Experts,

I have a specific question with regards to option E. The solution that the author is proposing is regarding the 'Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist'. However, if scientists work as a part of a team rather than alone, this plan would fail to be effective.

Could you please point out why this option is incorrect?

Regards,
Amit