Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research and accept as their colleagues those with...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Assumption

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research and accept as their colleagues those with similar motivation. Therefore, when any scientist wins renown as an expounder of science to general audiences, most other scientists conclude that this popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague.

The explanation offered above for the low esteem in which scientific popularizers are held by research scientists assumes that

serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues

research scientists tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy

a scientist can become a famous popularizer without having completed any important research

research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research

no important new research can be accessible to or accurately assessed by those who are not themselves scientists

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research and accept as their colleagues those with similar motivation.	What it says: Scientists want to do important research and see other scientists with the same goal as true colleagues What it does: Sets up the baseline expectation for what scientists value in their peers What it is: Author's claim about scientific community values Visualization: Research-focused scientists (80%) = True colleagues, while scientists with different motivations (20%) = Not considered true colleagues
Therefore, when any scientist wins renown as an expounder of science to general audiences, most other scientists conclude that this popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague.	What it says: When scientists become famous for explaining science to the public, other scientists stop seeing them as real colleagues What it does: Draws a conclusion that connects the previous premise about research focus to the treatment of science popularizers What it is: Author's main conclusion Visualization: Science popularizer gains public fame → 70-80% of other scientists → "Not a true colleague anymore" (based on the shift from research focus to public communication)

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by establishing what scientists value - doing important research - and uses this as the foundation to explain why they reject scientists who become popularizers. It moves from a general principle about scientific values to a specific conclusion about how popularizers are treated.

Main Conclusion:

Most scientists stop considering science popularizers as true colleagues once they become famous for explaining science to general audiences.

Logical Structure:

The argument assumes that becoming a popularizer means abandoning the goal of important research. Since scientists only accept those with similar research motivation as colleagues, they reject popularizers who appear to have shifted their focus from research to public communication.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to find what the author must believe to be true for their explanation to work. This means identifying unstated beliefs that connect the premises to the conclusion.

Precision of Claims

The argument makes specific claims about scientists' motivations (doing important new research), their colleague acceptance criteria (similar motivation), and the consequence for popularizers (no longer regarded as true colleagues).

Strategy

Since this is an assumption question, we need to identify what could falsify the conclusion while keeping the stated facts intact. The argument jumps from 'scientists value research motivation' to 'popularizers lose colleague status.' We need to find the missing link that makes this logical jump work - what must be true about popularizers for other scientists to reject them as colleagues?

Answer Choices Explained

serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues

This focuses on whether research requires cooperation, but that's not what the argument is about. The argument is explaining why popularizers lose colleague status, not discussing the collaborative nature of research. Whether research is cooperative or solitary doesn't affect the logic connecting research motivation to colleague acceptance.

research scientists tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy

This suggests jealousy as the reason for rejecting popularizers. However, the argument's reasoning is based on different motivations (research vs. popularization), not envy of fame. The argument presents a principled stance about research focus, not an emotional reaction to others' success.

a scientist can become a famous popularizer without having completed any important research

While this might be true in some cases, it's not necessary for the argument's logic. The argument works even if popularizers have done important research in the past - the issue is about current motivation and focus, not past achievements.

research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research

This is correct. The argument states that scientists accept as colleagues those with similar motivation (doing important research), then concludes that popularizers lose colleague status. For this logic to work, scientists must believe popularizers lack research motivation. This assumption bridges the gap between the premise about valuing research motivation and the conclusion about rejecting popularizers.

no important new research can be accessible to or accurately assessed by those who are not themselves scientists

This is about whether non-scientists can understand research, which is irrelevant to why scientists reject popularizers as colleagues. The argument's logic is about perceived motivations, not about the accessibility of research to general audiences.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...