Public health will improve more quickly in the wake of new medical discoveries if medical researchers abandon their practice of waiting until their findings are published in peer-reviewed journals before informing the press of important research results. This is because the public release of new medical information allows people to use that information in order to improve their health, but the peer-review process is unavoidably very slow.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) Many medical researchers do not agree to serve as reviewers when their own research is in a critical phase.
(B) Reviewers for many medical journals are not themselves medical researchers.
(C) People would use new medical information even if it were not first published in peer-reviewed journals.
(D) The peer-review process could be speeded up enough to produce a significant improvement in public health.
(E) New medical information that is first published in peer-reviewed journals does not usually receive public attention.
The Official Answer is C.
Anyone can solve it option by option for me? Thanks.
Public health will improve more quickly in the wake. . .
This topic has expert replies
- DavidG@VeritasPrep
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1153 times
- Followed by:128 members
- GMAT Score:770
Conclusion: Public health will improve more quickly if researchers alert media about new discoveries before publishing in peer-reviewed journalsVincen wrote:Public health will improve more quickly in the wake of new medical discoveries if medical researchers abandon their practice of waiting until their findings are published in peer-reviewed journals before informing the press of important research results. This is because the public release of new medical information allows people to use that information in order to improve their health, but the peer-review process is unavoidably very slow.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) Many medical researchers do not agree to serve as reviewers when their own research is in a critical phase.
(B) Reviewers for many medical journals are not themselves medical researchers.
(C) People would use new medical information even if it were not first published in peer-reviewed journals.
(D) The peer-review process could be speeded up enough to produce a significant improvement in public health.
(E) New medical information that is first published in peer-reviewed journals does not usually receive public attention.
The Official Answer is C.
Anyone can solve it option by option for me? Thanks.
Premise: Peer-review process is slow
Try negation here. The correct answer, when negated, should undermine the argument.
C negated: People would NOT use new medical information even if it were not first published in peer-reviewed journals.
Well, if people are not going to use the information if it's not first published in a peer-reviewed journal then the argument's claim that the public's health will improve more quickly if researchers forgo the peer-review process is clearly nonsense. Because the negation of C undermines the argument, we know it's the answer.