Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Dear friends,
Please help explain A,B, D,
thanks in advance.
Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist's argument?
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year actually was published.
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication
IMO:
(A) says one reason that cause low number of articles, so I think (A) can weaken the argument. while, OG says (A) eliminates the 3rd cause to rend support. I cannot get the OG's idea,
(B) says the waiting time decline, seems more chance to get accelerators, so I think it weaken the argument.
(D) says the accelerators can be used multi-experiments, that weaken the "decline availability", so I think (D) can weaken the argument as well.
please clarify my errors.
waiting for your reply.
thanks so much.
have a nice day.
>_~
Please help explain A,B, D,
thanks in advance.
Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist's argument?
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year actually was published.
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication
IMO:
(A) says one reason that cause low number of articles, so I think (A) can weaken the argument. while, OG says (A) eliminates the 3rd cause to rend support. I cannot get the OG's idea,
(B) says the waiting time decline, seems more chance to get accelerators, so I think it weaken the argument.
(D) says the accelerators can be used multi-experiments, that weaken the "decline availability", so I think (D) can weaken the argument as well.
please clarify my errors.
waiting for your reply.
thanks so much.
have a nice day.
>_~
