Self-study
Scientist: Physicists claim that their system of careful peer review prevents scientific fraud in physics effectively. ███ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████ █████ ███ █████ █████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ██ ██████ █████ █████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ████████ █████ ████████████ ██████████ ███████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ██████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if physicists were to greatly enhance their discipline’s safeguards against scientific fraud, progress in physics would be advanced. This is based on an analogy to what occurred in the field of biology. Biologists enhanced their discipline’s safeguards against scientific fraud, and this prevented major incidents of fraud.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that preventing major incidents of fraud is something that would help advance progress in physics. The author also assumes that what happened in biology after biologists enhanced safeguards is likely to happen in physics after physicists enhance safeguards.
22.
The conclusion of the scientist's ████████ ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████
a
Major incidents of ██████████ █████ ██ █ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ███████████
This strengthens the link between preventing major incidents of fraud and advancing progress in a scientific discipline. Without (A), the argument contains no premise that allows us to conclude that anything is “conducive to progress in physics.”
b
Very few incidents ██ ████ █████ ██████████ █████ ████ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ██████
The premises already establish that “further major incidents” of fraud were prevented in biology after the enhanced safeguards. What’s missing is how this relates to scientific progress in the field.
c
No system of ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████████
The physicists never claimed that their peer review system was “completely” effective. We want to establish that improving physics’ safeguards will help advance progress in physics. Showing that the current peer review system isn’t perfect doesn’t help us reach this conclusion.
d
Twenty years ago ███ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████
If anything, this might weaken by pointing out a relevant difference between biology and physics that could suggest what happened in biology after safeguards were established wouldn’t necessarily happen to physics.
e
Over the years, █████ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ████ █████ █████████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ████████
If anything, this might weaken by suggesting that stronger safeguards in physics wouldn’t necessarily have a meaningful impact on major incidents of fraud, since there are already so few.