Complete Question Explanation
Must Be True—Pr. The correct answer choice is (E)
The author of this stimulus presents the following argument: Some scientists have publicly praised (in journals) companies in which they are invested. The author asserts that this calls into question the integrity of scientific inquiry, concluding that full disclosure of scientists' holdings should be required. The question stem asks for the answer choice which most closely conforms to this principle—basically, that to protect the integrity of an inquiry, financial interests should be fully disclosed.
Answer choice (A): This choice would not present potentially conflicting incentives like those discussed in the stimulus, so this answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): While this may be true, it has nothing to do with the potentially conflicting financial incentives of experts.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice, which presents the principle behind insider-trading laws, does not conform to the principle from the stimulus, because it lacks the aspect of conflicting incentives.
Answer choice (D): Like the other incorrect answer choices above, this choice fails to include the conflicting financial incentives found in the stimulus; the incentives of the publisher of a magazine and that magazine's advertisers are nicely aligned.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This choice conforms to the principle reflected in the stimulus, reiterating the idea that there should be full disclosure of possibly conflicting financial interests on the part of those providing advice/reviews, etc.
#23 - In scientific journals, authors and reviewers have
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
I understand why the other answer choices do not make sense. However, I'm a little confused about the wording of answer E. The stimulus talks about scientists and their investments. Why does answer E discuss financial advisers? Do they mean the scientists in this case?
Thanks for the clarification!
Answer (E) and the rest of the answers are not talking about the stimulus, but instead trying to demonstrate the principle of the argument. Therefore, they don't mean scientists when they say financial advisors, because they're talking about a totally different argument than that given in the stimulus.
This question is a Principle type question, in which you are supposed to choose the argument that most similarly mirrors the principle given in the stimulus. This is similar to Parallel reasoning. In this case "financial advisors" act as a similar element to scientists in the original argument. The principle of the argument in the stimulus and (E) is the same--that professionals should disclose their conflicts of interests or incentives before offering opinions.
It can be confusing, but I recommend you look more closely at Principle and Parallel reasoning LSAT questions to better understand why the topics of the question and the answer choices do not match up. I hope that helps!
3 posts • Page 1 of 1