Scientists typically do their most creative work before the age of forty. It is commonly thought that this happens because...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Source: Official Guide
...
...
Post a Query
Scientists typically do their most creative work before the age of forty. It is commonly thought that this happens because aging by itself brings about a loss of creative capacity. However, a study has found that almost all scientists who produce highly creative work beyond the age of forty entered their fields late and less than a dozen years before their creative breakthroughs. Since creative breakthroughs by scientists under forty also generally occur within a dozen years of the scientist's entry into the field, the study's finding strongly suggests that the real reason why scientists over forty rarely produce highly creative work is not due to age but rather because most have spent too long in their fields.
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
Solution
Understanding the Passage
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| "Scientists typically do their most creative work before the age of forty." | What it says: Most scientists produce their best, most innovative work when they are younger than 40 years old. Visualization: Timeline showing scientists aged 25-39 producing breakthrough discoveries vs. scientists aged 40+ producing fewer breakthrough discoveries. What it does: Establishes the phenomenon that needs to be explained. Source: Author's statement of accepted fact |
| (Boldface 1) "aging by itself brings about a loss of creative capacity" | What it says: The common belief is that getting older naturally reduces a person's ability to think creatively and come up with new ideas. Visualization: Person at age 25 with high creativity level (90%) → age 35 with medium creativity (60%) → age 45 with low creativity (30%). What it does: Presents the traditional explanation for why older scientists are less creative. Source: Others' view (commonly thought explanation) |
| "However, a study has found that almost all scientists who produce highly creative work beyond the age of forty entered their fields late and less than a dozen years before their creative breakthroughs." | What it says: Research shows that scientists over 40 who do make major discoveries started their careers recently - within 12 years of their breakthrough. Visualization: Scientist A: Enters field at age 32 → Makes breakthrough at age 43 (11 years later). Scientist B: Enters field at age 35 → Makes breakthrough at age 44 (9 years later). What it does: Introduces new evidence that challenges the age-based explanation. Source: Author citing study evidence |
| (Boldface 2) "creative breakthroughs by scientists under forty also generally occur within a dozen years of the scientist's entry into the field" | What it says: Young scientists (under 40) also make their major discoveries within 12 years of starting their careers. Visualization: Young Scientist C: Enters field at age 25 → Makes breakthrough at age 35 (10 years later). Young Scientist D: Enters field at age 22 → Makes breakthrough at age 32 (10 years later). What it does: Provides the key parallel that supports the author's alternative explanation. Source: Author citing study evidence |
| "the study's finding strongly suggests that the real reason why scientists over forty rarely produce highly creative work is not due to age but rather because most have spent too long in their fields." | What it says: The author concludes that age isn't the problem - the real issue is that most older scientists have been working in their field for too many years. Visualization: Scientist who entered field at age 22 and is now 45 (23 years in field) vs. Scientist who entered field at age 35 and is now 45 (10 years in field) - the second one is more likely to have breakthroughs. What it does: States the author's main conclusion that rejects the age explanation in favor of a time-in-field explanation. Source: Author's conclusion |
Overall Structure
The author presents a commonly accepted explanation for a phenomenon, then uses study evidence to argue for an alternative explanation. The logic flows from: observed phenomenon → traditional explanation → contradictory evidence → alternative explanation.
Main Conclusion: The real reason scientists over forty rarely produce highly creative work is not due to age but because most have spent too long in their fields.
Boldface Segments
- Boldface 1: aging by itself brings about a loss of creative capacity
- Boldface 2: creative breakthroughs by scientists under forty also generally occur within a dozen years of the scientist's entry into the field
Boldface Understanding
Boldface 1:
- Function: States the traditional/common explanation for why older scientists are less creative
- Direction: Opposite direction - this view is what the author argues against
Boldface 2:
- Function: Provides key evidence that supports the author's alternative explanation by showing the same pattern exists for young scientists
- Direction: Same direction - this evidence supports the author's conclusion
Structural Classification
Boldface 1:
- Structural Role: A view that the author disputes/rejects
- Predicted Answer Patterns: "a view that the argument opposes," "an explanation that the argument rejects"
Boldface 2:
- Structural Role: Evidence that supports the author's conclusion
- Predicted Answer Patterns: "evidence that supports the argument's conclusion," "a finding that the argument uses to support its position"
Answer Choices Explained
A
The first is the position that the argument as a whole defends; the second is evidence that is advanced as part of that defense.
"The first is the position that the argument as a whole defends" - ✗ WRONG - The argument actually opposes the aging explanation, not defends it
"the second is evidence that is advanced as part of that defense" - ✗ WRONG - Since the first part is wrong, this continuation is also incorrect
"the second is evidence that is advanced as part of that defense" - ✗ WRONG - Since the first part is wrong, this continuation is also incorrect
B
The first and second are both claims that have been advanced in support of a position that the argument as a whole opposes.
"The first and second are both claims that have been advanced in support of a position that the argument as a whole opposes" - ✗ WRONG - While the first boldface does support a position the argument opposes, the second boldface actually supports the author's own position, not the opposing position
C
The first is an explanation that the argument challenges; the second provides evidence in support of a competing explanation that the argument defends.
"The first is an explanation that the argument challenges" - ✓ CORRECT - The aging explanation is what the author argues against throughout the passage
"the second provides evidence in support of a competing explanation that the argument defends" - ✓ CORRECT - The 12-year pattern for young scientists supports the author's alternative explanation that time-in-field, not age, determines creativity
"the second provides evidence in support of a competing explanation that the argument defends" - ✓ CORRECT - The 12-year pattern for young scientists supports the author's alternative explanation that time-in-field, not age, determines creativity
D
The first is an explanation that the argument challenges; the second is evidence that has been used against an alternative explanation that the argument defends.
"The first is an explanation that the argument challenges" - ✓ CORRECT - This part accurately describes the aging explanation
"the second is evidence that has been used against an alternative explanation that the argument defends" - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface supports the author's explanation, it doesn't work against it
"the second is evidence that has been used against an alternative explanation that the argument defends" - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface supports the author's explanation, it doesn't work against it
E
The first is an explanation that the argument defends; the second is evidence that has been used to challenge that explanation.
"The first is an explanation that the argument defends" - ✗ WRONG - The argument challenges the aging explanation, not defends it
"the second is evidence that has been used to challenge that explanation" - ✗ WRONG - Since the first part is incorrect, this relationship is also wrong
"the second is evidence that has been used to challenge that explanation" - ✗ WRONG - Since the first part is incorrect, this relationship is also wrong
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More