Junior biomedical researchers

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

Junior biomedical researchers

by gmatdriller » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:43 pm
Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and promotions depend significantly on the amount of their published work. People responsible for making hiring and promotion decisions in the biomedical research field, however, are influenced much more by the overall impact that a candidate's scientific publications have on his or her field than by the number of those publications.

The information above, if accurate, argues most strongly against which of the following claims?

a. Even biomedical researchers who are just beginning their careers are expected already to have published articles of major significance to the field.
b. Contributions to the field of biomedical research are generally considered to be significant only if the work is published.
c. The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is sometimes taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers.
d. People responsible for hiring or promoting biomedical researchers can reasonably be expected to make a fair assessment of the overall impact of a candidate's publications on his or her field.
e. Biomedical researchers can substantially increase their chances of promotion by fragmenting their research findings so that they are published in several journals instead of one.


How do i achieve this? Is it by making claims against the position offered by researchers or
against that of those hiring and promoting?
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:54 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:3 members

by outreach » Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:34 pm
is the answer E?

it should be by claims against the position offered by junior biomedical researchers..
The claim is that "hirings and promotions depend significantly on the amount of their published work". But the arg says that decision is made on impact of publication rather than on volume

option E says that biomedical researchers are trying to increase their volume of publicatiions.
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:07 am
Thanked: 9 times

by aloneontheedge » Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:46 pm
gmatdriller wrote:Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and promotions depend significantly on the amount of their published work. People responsible for making hiring and promotion decisions in the biomedical research field, however, are influenced much more by the overall impact that a candidate's scientific publications have on his or her field than by the number of those publications.

The information above, if accurate, argues most strongly against which of the following claims?

a. Even biomedical researchers who are just beginning their careers are expected already to have published articles of major significance to the field.
b. Contributions to the field of biomedical research are generally considered to be significant only if the work is published.
c. The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is sometimes taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers.
d. People responsible for hiring or promoting biomedical researchers can reasonably be expected to make a fair assessment of the overall impact of a candidate's publications on his or her field.
e. Biomedical researchers can substantially increase their chances of promotion by fragmenting their research findings so that they are published in several journals instead of one.


How do i achieve this? Is it by making claims against the position offered by researchers or
against that of those hiring and promoting?
Premise : Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and promotions depend significantly on the amount of their published work
People responsible for hiring:are influenced much more by the overall impact that a candidate's scientific publications have on his or her field than by the number of those publications

What will weaken the people responsible for promotion.
B just explains that.
Pick B

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

by gmatdriller » Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:49 am
Summary(my understanding) of the passage:

Researchers: promotion depends on amount (volume) of publications.

Promoters: promotion depends largely on impact of publication rather on volume.
i.e (i) consider Researcher1 with 10 publications ===>NOT FAVORED.
(ii) consider Researcher2 with only 1 publication but in 100 different journals ===> more impact and thus FAVORED.

From the options, E says promoters are more favorably disposed to having a research published in more than one
journal -wider reach, hence more impact. This position is in contention with that of the Researchers in the stem.

From the foregoing, we can say that option E asserts the position of the promoters as in the original stem,
and it is in contention with the researchers'.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:38 am
Thanked: 10 times

by Shawshank » Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:40 am
IMO --E
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shawshank Redemtion -- Hope is still alive ...

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

by gmatdriller » Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:43 am
Actually OA is E.
However, i got everything mixed-up as a result of the language in the correct choice:

Biomedical researchers can substantially increase their chances of promotion by FRAGMENTING
their research findings so that they are published in several journals instead of one.

Any clear explanations of the terms in bold please...

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:18 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by ansumania » Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:32 pm
What is wrong with C?......

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:40 pm
It is out of scope
ansumania wrote:What is wrong with C?......
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:13 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:650

by tisrar02 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:43 pm
gmatdriller wrote:Actually OA is E.
However, i got everything mixed-up as a result of the language in the correct choice:

Biomedical researchers can substantially increase their chances of promotion by FRAGMENTING
their research findings so that they are published in several journals instead of one.

Any clear explanations of the terms in bold please...
/

Fragmenting their findings means that they are taking small portions of their findings out and publish articles. So if the researcher found something, he/she would make more than one article pertaining to the same idea but different aspects of the findings. Thus if their doing this, and there more likely to get promoted, then this definitely is the correct answer
Dedication is what leads to success...