Critical Reasoning

The seventeenth-century physicist Sir Isaac Newton is remembered chiefly for his treaties on motion and gravity. But Newton also conducted experiments secretly for many years based on the arcane theories of alchemy, trying unsuccessfully to transmute common metals into gold and produce rejuvenating elixirs. If the alchemists of the seventeenth century had published the results of their experiments, chemistry in the eighteenth century would have been more advanced that it actually was.

Which one of the following assumptions would allow the conclusion concerning eighteenth-century chemistry to be properly drawn?
(A) Scientific progress is retarded by the reluctance of historians to acknowledge the failures of some of the great scientists.
(B) Advances in science are hastened when reports of experiments, whether successful or not, are available for review by other scientists.
(C) Newton's work on motion and gravity would not have gained wide acceptance if the results of his work in alchemy had also been made public.
(D) Increasing specialization within the sciences makes it difficult for scientists in one field to understand the principles of other fields.
(E) The seventeenth-century alchemists could have achieved their goals only if their experiments had been subjected to public scrutiny.

I chose E. OA is B

I picked B. Choice E is a prime example of an extreme answer choice. You see "only" in the answer choice? I ruled it out immediately. Besides we don't know what the alchemists goals were because there is no mention of the goals in the question. Hope this helps.

But if you apply the negation test, E is a perfect fit. How would you justify the negation test for B?
Please explain.

Hi can U reveal the source ?

The easiest way to answer this is to simplify the passage and break it down to its meaning. All its saying is that:

1. Newton performed secret alchemy experiments in the 17th century that failed.
2. If the results were published chemists in the 18th century would have been better off.

The question wants to know how you can logically jump from point number 1 to point number 2.

A. Incorrect. Historians have no bearing on the development of chemistry over 300 years ago.

B. Correct. This completes the picture. In order for chemists to be better off they would have to have learned something from the reports. If the reports were worthless then chemists would not be better off.

C. Incorrect. We are not concerned with Newton. He is just an example of an alchemist.

D. Incorrect. totally unrelated to the passage

E. Incorrect. If this information was in the argument what would you conclude? It would be that alchemy, and not chemistry would be more advanced. The goals of the alchemists are not necessarily the same as that of the chemist. Whether or not they complete their goals is unimportant.

Its from Aristotle CR question bank.

mundasingh123 wrote:Hi can U reveal the source ?