There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a syste...
Rebecca-AlvaradoSeptember 23, 2018
Struggling
Hello! I read over why (A) is correct but I'm wondering why it's an issue if some findings aren't replicated for a long time? The passage never said that experiments are challenged quickly, just that it will happen. So I didn't find (A) to be inconsistent with the passage. But if their work is submitted to peer review, as (B) states, then their work will not need to undergo the process of disconfirmation that's described and we would undermine the argument. Or no? I'm sorry, I'm really struggling to wrap my mind around these questions.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
@Rebecca-Alvarado the conclusion here is, "There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published."
And why? Because "There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific findings, namely, the replication of results by other scientists."
But what if a lot of time passed between publication and confirmation via the replication of results by other scientists?
This is exactly what (A) states, i.e. "Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated," which clearly weakens the argument that there is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before publishing.
Remember, "inconsistent" is NOT the criteria for the correct answer choice on a Weaken question. That is the standard on a Cannot Be True question.
As for (B), if anything it seems to strengthen by pointing out another reason we don't need official confirmation before publishing, i.e. work is submitted to peer review before publication.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
kassideeJanuary 8, 2020
what do you mean by inconsistent is not the standard?
Ashley-Tien-2May 7, 2021
But it says that poor scientific work is not harmful so what's the harm in there being a long time going by before the work is discovered to be poor, as it states in A? Could someone get to this question?
