It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I selected E. I thought the people's confidence was important. If the other scientists knew that the people's confidence in professor smith was low, they didn't have to worry about needing to discredit it because no one would believe him. Please help me understand why this is not the correct choice and why C (present evidence to find truth) is.
Comments
The issue with the argument is the author concluding that the papers published by scientists were written as part of a conspiracy to discredit Professor S. (They're all out to get this Professor Smith!) But maybe they really did have compelling evidence that conclusively shows Professor S's scientific theory was incorrect and C gets at that although it phrases it in a difficult way.
the author really jumps to a wild and unsupported conclusion here. they're ascribing an intent or a motive to the scientists that we have no reason to believe is true. so, other scientists published papers proving prof. smith wrong. okay.. how on earth does that show there was a conspiracy to discredit him? there are many reasons as to why they could have published their papers, and that's what C gets at. the conclusion of the argument excludes so many other far more realistic possibilities, and C presents one to us (that they're just trying to get to the bottom of this).
i think you selected E because you brought your own assumptions about the real world into the question-- and the answer choice is preying on that. nowhere in the stimulus does it mention public confidence. in other words, E requires way too many assumptions to be true. how do we know the scientists even care about public confidence? in general, when you have a flaw question, you have to answer the question using only the information provided. it could be a stimulus about the sky being red and you'd still have to take it as it is and try to find the flaw in the argument.
thanks kilgore. I understand it a lot better now!
Hey I still have no idea why C gets to the point of presenting an alternative explanation of the science community discrediting Smith. Mind further clarifying why? I have big trouble understanding what C really means. Thanks in advance.