- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Aug 14, 2015 11:00 pm
#35163
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen—CE. The correct answer choice is (A)
Your task in this Strengthen question is to select the answer choice that most supports the scientist’s
conclusion. The scientist’s argument proceeds:
Premise: physicists claim their system of careful scientific peer review prevents
scientific fraud in physics effectively
Premise: but, biologists claimed the same thing 20 years ago, and the turned out to be
wrong
Premise: biologists have since greatly enhanced their discipline’s safeguards against
scientific fraud, preventing further major incidents
Conclusion: it would be conducive to progress in physics if physicists were to do the same
thing
Your prephrase is that the correct answer will support the scientist’s conclusion that enhancing
safeguards against scientific fraud would be conducive to progress in physics. Specifically, a gap in
this causal argument is that prior to the conclusion, the argument mentions nothing about progress,
either in reference to biology or physics. So, the correct answer will likely connect enhancing the
safeguards against scientific fraud in physics to progress in physics.
The incorrect choices will not support the conclusion, either because they have no effect on the
conclusion or weaken it.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The premise regarding biology established
that enhancing the safeguards prevented further major incidents. Assuming that physics and
biology are sufficiently similar as academic disciplines, it is reasonable to conclude that enhancing
safeguards in physics will also lead to the prevention of further major incidents in physics. This
choice provides an additional causal relationship that connects major incidents to the idea of
progress. If it is the case that major incidents of scientific fraud in a scientific discipline are
deleterious to progress in that discipline, then preventing such major incidents would remove the
deleterious effect, thus being conducive to progress. Do not mistake this to mean removing major
incidents will cause progress. Rather, it will create an environment in which progress may occur.
Answer choice (B): This information supports the premise that increasing safeguards in chemistry
prevented further major incidents, but does nothing to support the conclusion drawn from that
premise.
Answer choice (C): This choice does not affect the argument, which discussed preventing further
major incidents of fraud, and did not deal with completely preventing scientific fraud.
Answer choice (D): This choice has no effect on the conclusion, because the comparison it evokes is
not material to the conclusion.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice would tend to undermine the conclusion that increased
safeguards in physics would produce any results.
Strengthen—CE. The correct answer choice is (A)
Your task in this Strengthen question is to select the answer choice that most supports the scientist’s
conclusion. The scientist’s argument proceeds:
Premise: physicists claim their system of careful scientific peer review prevents scientific fraud in physics effectively Premise: but, biologists claimed the same thing 20 years ago, and the turned out to be wrong Premise: biologists have since greatly enhanced their discipline’s safeguards against scientific fraud, preventing further major incidents Conclusion: it would be conducive to progress in physics if physicists were to do the same thingYour prephrase is that the correct answer will support the scientist’s conclusion that enhancing
safeguards against scientific fraud would be conducive to progress in physics. Specifically, a gap in
this causal argument is that prior to the conclusion, the argument mentions nothing about progress,
either in reference to biology or physics. So, the correct answer will likely connect enhancing the
safeguards against scientific fraud in physics to progress in physics.
The incorrect choices will not support the conclusion, either because they have no effect on the
conclusion or weaken it.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The premise regarding biology established
that enhancing the safeguards prevented further major incidents. Assuming that physics and
biology are sufficiently similar as academic disciplines, it is reasonable to conclude that enhancing
safeguards in physics will also lead to the prevention of further major incidents in physics. This
choice provides an additional causal relationship that connects major incidents to the idea of
progress. If it is the case that major incidents of scientific fraud in a scientific discipline are
deleterious to progress in that discipline, then preventing such major incidents would remove the
deleterious effect, thus being conducive to progress. Do not mistake this to mean removing major
incidents will cause progress. Rather, it will create an environment in which progress may occur.
Answer choice (B): This information supports the premise that increasing safeguards in chemistry
prevented further major incidents, but does nothing to support the conclusion drawn from that
premise.
Answer choice (C): This choice does not affect the argument, which discussed preventing further
major incidents of fraud, and did not deal with completely preventing scientific fraud.
Answer choice (D): This choice has no effect on the conclusion, because the comparison it evokes is
not material to the conclusion.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice would tend to undermine the conclusion that increased
safeguards in physics would produce any results.
