PT18.S2.Q22 - much of the best scientific research

Samcandoit!Samcandoit! Alum Member
edited January 2016 in Logical Reasoning 71 karma
Hi there, I found the correct answer choice makes sense. But I chose A when I first do this question. I think A also explain the conflict by point out the possibility that: maybe because generally people don't know the fact that the mistaken scientific finding is mistaken; therefore, nowadays scientists study them and make more people know about the the inaccuracy of the earlier flawed research." (I know it sounds weird when you read this, but it comes out naturally to me when I encounter this question at first time). Answer D seems also problematic to me. Would it be valuable for nowadays scientists to study earlier but mistaken research just because they want to be more familiar to the older research. Maybe they are interested in scientific history, because the word "valuable" is really vague here, different people may have different standard of "valuable".
I notice that I made some assumption unconsciously, but I do not know what are those assumptions. I would really appreciate your help.


  • c.janson35c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    edited August 2015 2398 karma
    I think the issue with this questions is what the paradox really is: why is it valuable for scientists to study mistaken studies if they are concerned to discover the truth?

    In that respect, A doesn't help us out. We aren't wondering why scientists study earlier work which is what A might be explaining. We are wondering why it might be VALUABLE for them to do so. Even if they don't know the accounts to be mistaken, it doesn't let us know why they would be valuable to study since we know that they are in fact mistaken. D similarly fails in this manner: there's no reason that D gives why it would be valuable to study what is now known to be mistaken work.

    Contrast these choices with B, which does provide a reason of value.

    Hope this helps!
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum
    1749 karma
    What do they mean by "firsthand account"? My initial guess is like an interview with the original scientist or assistant... or could it also mean "pouring over the research/data/hypotheses/conclusions"? The reason I ask is because interviewing original researchers who "generally" recall their studies accurately....does nothing to reconcile the passage (i.e. what makes that valuable)?
  • Samcandoit!Samcandoit! Alum Member
    71 karma
    @c.janson35 Thank you so much Jason. Do you mean that the assumption I made for A and D are "why scientists need to study the mistaken accounts" instead of "why it might be valuable for them to study the accounts even if they care about finding the truth"? This definitely helps me out. I need to be extra careful about tiny little difference such as this.
Sign In or Register to comment.