shekhar.kataria 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.

Passage is saying "Let Sc Work be published before Officially getting it confirmed". We need to weaken this.

Premises say "System gets the work confirmed by checking the replication and if 1 scientist whether he is careless or fraud his contribution is No Harm to the work as it will be exposed when the work is dis confirmed".

When this Argument is weakened? When we find some options saying "These non confirmed publications are causing some problems" or "Once published there is very little chance of getting it verified by the System"....

please read from E to A here as A is correct one

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated. Left after POE. This actually weakens the argument by saying Wrong work will be published for a long time without being verified.
(B) Talking about scientists in General, so we cannot make generalization about "scientists working in universities"
(C) They are under pressure as it will be verified by the system. So they may make mistake, which will harm their work. And may get dis confirmed. But Argument says Publish it. Verification is a later thing. Clearly, work is being published; this is what mentioned in the argument also. Now its sure that this option is NOT weakening it.
(D) Degree of carelessness or Fraud is NOT comparable as Premise says "It does not matter". Against Premise.
(E) They are a Team worker but what about Publishing and getting it verified? Out Of Scope.

shovan85 wrote:

shekhar.kataria 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.

Passage is saying "Let Sc Work be published before Officially getting it confirmed". We need to weaken this.

Premises say "System gets the work confirmed by checking the replication and if 1 scientist whether he is careless or fraud his contribution is No Harm to the work as it will be exposed when the work is dis confirmed".

When this Argument is weakened? When we find some options saying "These non confirmed publications are causing some problems" or "Once published there is very little chance of getting it verified by the System"....

please read from E to A here as A is correct one

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated. Left after POE. This actually weakens the argument by saying Wrong work will be published for a long time without being verified.
(B) Talking about scientists in General, so we cannot make generalization about "scientists working in universities"
(C) They are under pressure as it will be verified by the system. So they may make mistake, which will harm their work. And may get dis confirmed. But Argument says Publish it. Verification is a later thing. Clearly, work is being published; this is what mentioned in the argument also. Now its sure that this option is NOT weakening it.
(D) Degree of carelessness or Fraud is NOT comparable as Premise says "It does not matter". Against Premise.
(E) They are a Team worker but what about Publishing and getting it verified? Out Of Scope.

Thanks Shovan for the quick response.