1000 CR - good one

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:10 am
Thanked: 13 times

1000 CR - good one

by shekhar.kataria » Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:41 am
Friends, this CR question from LSAT has been discussed many times but didnt provide any explaininations with the correct answer A . Also please explain wazz wrong with C.

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before
being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation
of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor
scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from
careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and
rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain
disconfirmatory results.\

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are
replicated.
(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer
review before publication.
(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny
of replication.
(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.
(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times
Followed by:24 members

by shovan85 » Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:22 pm
shekhar.kataria wrote: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before
being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation
of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor
scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from
careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and
rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain
disconfirmatory results.
Passage is saying "Let Sc Work be published before Officially getting it confirmed". We need to weaken this.

Premises say "System gets the work confirmed by checking the replication and if 1 scientist whether he is careless or fraud his contribution is No Harm to the work as it will be exposed when the work is dis confirmed".

When this Argument is weakened? When we find some options saying "These non confirmed publications are causing some problems" or "Once published there is very little chance of getting it verified by the System"....

please read from E to A here as A is correct one

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated. Left after POE. This actually weakens the argument by saying Wrong work will be published for a long time without being verified.
(B) Talking about scientists in General, so we cannot make generalization about "scientists working in universities"
(C) They are under pressure as it will be verified by the system. So they may make mistake, which will harm their work. And may get dis confirmed. But Argument says Publish it. Verification is a later thing. Clearly, work is being published; this is what mentioned in the argument also. Now its sure that this option is NOT weakening it.
(D) Degree of carelessness or Fraud is NOT comparable as Premise says "It does not matter". Against Premise.
(E) They are a Team worker but what about Publishing and getting it verified? Out Of Scope.
If the problem is Easy Respect it, if the problem is tough Attack it

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:10 am
Thanked: 13 times

by shekhar.kataria » Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:32 pm
shovan85 wrote:
shekhar.kataria wrote: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before
being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation
of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor
scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from
careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and
rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain
disconfirmatory results.
Passage is saying "Let Sc Work be published before Officially getting it confirmed". We need to weaken this.

Premises say "System gets the work confirmed by checking the replication and if 1 scientist whether he is careless or fraud his contribution is No Harm to the work as it will be exposed when the work is dis confirmed".

When this Argument is weakened? When we find some options saying "These non confirmed publications are causing some problems" or "Once published there is very little chance of getting it verified by the System"....

please read from E to A here as A is correct one

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated. Left after POE. This actually weakens the argument by saying Wrong work will be published for a long time without being verified.
(B) Talking about scientists in General, so we cannot make generalization about "scientists working in universities"
(C) They are under pressure as it will be verified by the system. So they may make mistake, which will harm their work. And may get dis confirmed. But Argument says Publish it. Verification is a later thing. Clearly, work is being published; this is what mentioned in the argument also. Now its sure that this option is NOT weakening it.
(D) Degree of carelessness or Fraud is NOT comparable as Premise says "It does not matter". Against Premise.
(E) They are a Team worker but what about Publishing and getting it verified? Out Of Scope.
Thanks Shovan for the quick response.