PT5.S3.Q11- Professor Smith

ang_whitlockang_whitlock Monthly Member
edited January 2021 in Logical Reasoning 42 karma

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

  • Ashley2018Ashley2018 Monthly Member
    edited January 2021 2064 karma

    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.

  • kilgoretroutkilgoretrout Alum Member
    795 karma

    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.

  • ang_whitlockang_whitlock Monthly Member
    42 karma

    thanks kilgore. I understand it a lot better now!

  • leoxnardxleoxnardx Alum Member
    82 karma

    @Ashley2018 said:
    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.

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.