Question
Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research and accept as their colleagues those with similar motivation. Therefore, when any scientist wins renown as an expounder of science to general audiences, most other scientists conclude that this popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague.
The explanation offered above for the low esteem in which scientific popularizers are held by research scientists assumes that
(Because of copyrights, the complete official question is not copied here. You can access the question here: GMAT Club)
Difficulty: Medium
Accuracy: 76%
Based on: 8521 sessions
Solution
The Story
Generally scientists enter their field with the goal of doing important new research and accept as their colleagues those with similar motivation.
Generally scientists become scientists with a particular goal. They wish to do important new research.
They are fine to partner with other scientists who also have the same goal.
(So perhaps they are not fine to partner with scientists who do not have the same goal.)
Therefore, when any scientist wins renown as an expounder of science to general audiences, most other scientists conclude that this popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague.
If a scientist explains science to general audiences, and, as a result, earns fame, other scientists stop treating him as a ‘true colleague’.
Who would the scientists consider to be a ‘true colleague’? For that we’ll need to relate this statement to the previous one.
A ‘true colleague’ would be a scientist who also shares the goal of doing important new research.
The Logic:
Scientists:
We wish to do important new research.
We expect similar motivation from our colleagues.
Therefore, we wouldn’t want to work with a scientist who earns fame by being a popularizer of science.
Why not?
They must believe that a scientist who earns fame for explaining things to the general public (a popularizer) cannot have the same motivation to do important new research.
Question Stem
The explanation offered above for the low esteem in which scientific popularizers are held by research scientists assumes that
“Low esteem”: ‘this popularizer should no longer be regarded as a true colleague’
Research scientists hold scientific popularizers in low esteem.
What’s the explanation offered for this?
That’s in the first sentence: Scientists are ok to accept as their colleagues scientists who also have a goal of doing important new research.
Question: What do the scientists assume to decide that if a scientist is a popularizer, he can’t be a true colleague?
They must believe that a scientist who earns fame for explaining things to the general public (a popularizer) cannot have the same motivation to do important new research.
Framework: The correct answer will strengthen the explanation, and, without it, the explanation will break down.
Answer choice analysis
Answer Choice: A
Incorrect
Selected by: 11%
Statement: Serious scientific research relies on cooperation among scientists.
That’s fine. The argument is about whether scientists may consider a popularizer a true colleague. This statement has no impact on the argument and, thus, is not an assumption.
Also, consider the following option:
A’. serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation between scientists and the general public
What impact does this statement have on the above explanation?
If serious scientific research relies on cooperation between scientists and the general public, perhaps scientists should still consider a popularizer a true colleague. This answer choice weakens the argument.
Answer Choice: B
Incorrect
Selected by: 5%
How about the following option first:
(B’) research scientists envy the renown of scientific popularizers, and they tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy
This option weakens the given explanation. This one brings in another perspective – maybe the popularizers could still be ‘true colleagues’, just that other scientists do not wish to work with them because the popularizers are famous.
Now in the original answer choice, we have no idea whether other scientists envy the popularizers. Thus the option has no impact on the argument, and, thus, can’t be an assumption.
Answer Choice: C
Incorrect
Selected by: 6%
What kind of a scientist can become a famous popularizer is not relevant to the argument. No impact.
Answer Choice: D
Correct
Selected by: 76%
This one fits. This is in line with my initial understanding.
If research scientists believe that the popularizers do not share the same goal of doing important new research, they would not consider the popularizers ‘true colleagues’. This statement supports the reasoning.
Negation: research scientists do not believe that those who are well know as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research
In that case, the explanation will cease to explain the conclusion.
Answer Choice: E
Incorrect
Selected by: 2%
No impact. What research non-scientists can access or assess is irrelevant to the argument.
If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask in the comments section.
Anish Passi
GMAT Coach
With over a decade of GMAT training experience, top 1 percentile scores on the CAT and GMAT, and a passion for teaching, I’d like to believe I am quite qualified to be a GMAT coach. GMAT is learnable, and I help students master the GMAT through a process-oriented approach based on logic and common sense. I offer private tutoring and live-online classroom courses. My sessions are often sprinkled with real-world examples, references to movies, and jokes that only I find funny. You’ve been warned 🙂