Critical Reasoning

73. 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.
OA : C why not A

My take on the difference between option A and C.

We need to find out the flaw in the argument.

On examination of the argument we find that -

S found something in water that can impact neural system adversely.
This goes against an existing theory
Other Scientist are publishing false papers against S's theory
Scientists are conspiring against S

If scientists are conspiring against S then it is implicit that there is lot at stake but what author doesn't tell is why scientists are not able to disapprove S's theory through some evidences.
Hence C

saranshpuri wrote:73. 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.
OA : C why not A

Hello sinsofgmat,

As far as my understanding is concerned, Conclusion is : Scientist are threatened by smith work and are conspiring to discredit smith's work.

So any options which tells us that scientist are in fact not conspiring and are not threatened by smith's work will be the correct answer.

C tells us that Scientist had not provided evidence to refute smith's theory. But , this fact does not weaken the argument as when someone is conspiring against someone, then he may or may not use evidence to make a false allegation against someone.
I think Conclusion is about Scientists intentions , not what actually they do to disprove smith's theory.