Critical Reasoning

Generally, marine biologists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research. They expect their colleagues to have similar goals. Therefore, when any marine biologist becomes a household name in the field of documentary nature films, most other scientists conclude that this biologist should no longer be regarded as a true colleague.

The explanation offered above for the low esteem in which marine biologists who make documentary films are held by research scientists assumes that

(A) Serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues

(B) Research scientists tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy

(C) A scientist can become famous as a marine biologist who makes documentary films without having completed any important research

(D) Research scientists believe that those who are well known as marine biologists who make documentary films are not motivated to do important new research

(E) No important new research can be accessible to or accurately assessed by those who are not themselves scientists

Comments on C and D

I believe the answer should be D.

The passage clearly states "scientists conclude that this biologist should no longer be regarded". Hence the scientict may AT ONE point have been regarded as a colleague (and thus have contributed by researching new and important things) but we must understand why creating a documentary will no longer make him one.

HOpe this helps

Agree with @m&m's explanation.

Answer should be - D

I will Go with option D in this case.