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.
Am unable to understand what A means.
COnfusing
This topic has expert replies
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:09 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:1 members
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:54 pm
- Thanked: 4 times
Answer (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.Deepthi Subbu wrote: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.
Am unable to understand what A means.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:54 pm
- Thanked: 4 times
The passage has a flaw that it fails to explain why the other scientists would go against the professor.sharmasumitn1 wrote:Answer (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.Deepthi Subbu wrote: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.
Am unable to understand what A means.
B explains this
it should be C. This is the flaw - that they weren't simply going after Smith to discredit him; they may in fact be presenting the truth. it should be C.
A- Smith was biased and had much to gain - so what -- doesn't affect the argument...
B- Smith's knowledge of whether the stuff in the paper conflicted with established theory has no impact on the argument... it doesn't address the point about a conspiracy against him
D - relationship of author to smith - bias angle again -- no impact
E- public confidence in Smith's paper is out of scope here
A- Smith was biased and had much to gain - so what -- doesn't affect the argument...
B- Smith's knowledge of whether the stuff in the paper conflicted with established theory has no impact on the argument... it doesn't address the point about a conspiracy against him
D - relationship of author to smith - bias angle again -- no impact
E- public confidence in Smith's paper is out of scope here
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:36 am
- Thanked: 6 times
another vote for C...Deepthi Subbu wrote: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.
Am unable to understand what A means.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:51 pm
- Thanked: 62 times
- Followed by:5 members
- GMAT Score:750
1. Prof. Smith published a paper that went against conventional wisdom
2. Other scientists published papers saying Smith was wrong
3. They wrote these papers because they felt threatened by Smiths work.
A. Incorrect. This question is giving a reason why Smith may have fudged work, but it has nothing to do with why scientists would feel threatened by the work.
B> Incorrect. It may give a reason why his work was incorrect, but has nothing to do with making others feel threatened,
C. Correct. The authors leap is that the others felt threatened by his work and wrote these papers to hurt him. Its quite possible that they were simply testing what could have been a new breakthru and simply found it to be wrong. There would be no malicious intent in those papers, thus undermining the conclusion.
D. Incorrect. Who the author is makes no difference
E. Incorrect This also has no bearing on the conclusion as how the public felt would not make the scientists feel any more or less threatened. It might show that they felt they had a moral responsibility to test his theories but that is not a reason to feel threatened or conspire.
2. Other scientists published papers saying Smith was wrong
3. They wrote these papers because they felt threatened by Smiths work.
A. Incorrect. This question is giving a reason why Smith may have fudged work, but it has nothing to do with why scientists would feel threatened by the work.
B> Incorrect. It may give a reason why his work was incorrect, but has nothing to do with making others feel threatened,
C. Correct. The authors leap is that the others felt threatened by his work and wrote these papers to hurt him. Its quite possible that they were simply testing what could have been a new breakthru and simply found it to be wrong. There would be no malicious intent in those papers, thus undermining the conclusion.
D. Incorrect. Who the author is makes no difference
E. Incorrect This also has no bearing on the conclusion as how the public felt would not make the scientists feel any more or less threatened. It might show that they felt they had a moral responsibility to test his theories but that is not a reason to feel threatened or conspire.
- arora007
- Community Manager
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 51 times
- Followed by:27 members
- GMAT Score:670
It sure is between B and C. I chose C, as this indicates a flaw.. B is something too much to ask forDeepthi Subbu wrote: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.
Am unable to understand what A means.
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!