Conspiracy to discredit

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

Conspiracy to discredit

by siddus » Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:16 am
This one is giving me some trouble..any takers?
Please post your explanations or POE


Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical found in minute quantities in most drinking water had an adverse effect on the human nervous system. Existing scientific theory held that no such effect was possible because there was no neural mechanism for bringing it about. Several papers by well-known scientists in the field followed, unanimously purporting to prove Professor Smith wrong. This clearly shows that the scientific establishment was threatened by Professor Smith's work and conspired to discredit it.

Which one of the following is the central flaw in the argument given by the author of the passage?

(A) The author passes over the possibility that Professor Smith had much to gain should Professor Smith's discovery have found general acceptance.

(B) The author fails to mention whether or not Professor Smith knew that the existence of the alleged new effect was incompatible with established scientific theory.

(C) The author fails to show why the other scientists could not have been presenting evidence in order to establish the truth of the matter.

(D) The author neglects to clarify what his or her relationship to Professor Smith is.

(E) The author fails to indicate what, if any, effect the publication of Professor Smith's paper had on the public's confidence in the safety of most drinking water.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:3 members

by FightWithGMAT » Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:34 am
siddus wrote:This one is giving me some trouble..any takers?
Please post your explanations or POE


Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical found in minute quantities in most drinking water had an adverse effect on the human nervous system. Existing scientific theory held that no such effect was possible because there was no neural mechanism for bringing it about. Several papers by well-known scientists in the field followed, unanimously purporting to prove Professor Smith wrong. This clearly shows that the scientific establishment was threatened by Professor Smith's work and conspired to discredit it.

Which one of the following is the central flaw in the argument given by the author of the passage?

(A) The author passes over the possibility that Professor Smith had much to gain should Professor Smith's discovery have found general acceptance.

(B) The author fails to mention whether or not Professor Smith knew that the existence of the alleged new effect was incompatible with established scientific theory.

(C) The author fails to show why the other scientists could not have been presenting evidence in order to establish the truth of the matter.

(D) The author neglects to clarify what his or her relationship to Professor Smith is.

(E) The author fails to indicate what, if any, effect the publication of Professor Smith's paper had on the public's confidence in the safety of most drinking water.

I go with A
The words "threatened" and "conspired" show that the author wants to convey that there could a benefit to Mr Smith.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:32 am
Location: India
Thanked: 1 times

by Gyan » Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:52 am
IMO C

Legendary Member
Posts: 576
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:31 pm
Thanked: 97 times
Followed by:1 members

by liferocks » Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:58 am
I think the main flaw in the logic of the author is he/she has accepted Professor Smith's theory to be true and thinks any one opposing this has ill-intentions but this might not be true.There is a possibility that Professor Smith's findings are incorrect and thus the evidences against it might be with good intentions.Only option C address this .
IMO ans is C
What is OA?
"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there."
Lewis Carroll

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:32 am
Thanked: 17 times

by this_time_i_will » Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:39 am
IMO A.
I guess we can rule out C. Re-read the line"Several papers by well-known scientists in the field followed, unanimously purporting to prove Professor Smith wrong".

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by siddus » Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:23 am
Well the OA is -

[spoiler](C) The author fails to show why the other scientists could not have been presenting evidence in order to establish the truth of the matter. [/spoiler]

IMO option A does not explain why the author feels that the other scientists are conspiring to discredit the professor. It would have been a different case if the option would have stated the reverse: that the scientists had something to lose if the original theory was proved wrong and hence they wanted to discredit the professor.

@liferocks: Need your inputs here -

In the argument, the author states that the opposing scientists published several papers to prove the professor's conclusion wrong. If this is true, then how can we state that the author fails to show evidence that establishes the truth of the matter?

By publishing their work the scientists have provided evidence that sets to establish that the professors theory (truth of the matter) is incorrect.

I hope I am not making a mistake interpreting the meaning of the answer option.

Cheers
Sid

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
Thanked: 2 times

by martin.jonson007 » Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:16 am
IMO C

it's better but not perfect

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:36 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by Prashant Ranjan » Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:07 am
Siddus I will try to explain the answer to question in the best way I can...
Perhaps you need to re-read the answer choice (C) with a different perspective.

Smiths' findings are ardently taken to be correct by the author (as @liferocks correctly says in the previous post) and the author assumes that any further theories against Smiths' findings are simply because of a unanimous conspiracy to prove Smiths' findings incorrect. Saying this, the author simply assumes that "the other findings by eminent Scientists could not be revealing the real truth of the matter" - which is indeed the flaw and which is what the choice (C) says. The author fails to consider this opinion that "Other Scientists' findings may reveal the actual truth (whatever it may be but certainly not what Smiths' findings purport).

Thanks
Prashant