Essayist: Winners of a Nobel prize for science, who are typically professional scientists, have all made significant ...

shunhe on May 29, 2020

Hi @hkolon,

Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at this stimulus. We know that winners of a Nobel prize for science, typically professional scientists, have all made significant contributions to science. But many amateur scientists have also made significant contributions. And amateur scientists are motivated by the love of discovery alone, whereas professional scientists can also be motivated by other things, like economic necessity or a desire for fame.

Now assuming all these statements are true, we’re asked for a statement that follows—a must be true question. Let’s take a look at (E), which tells us that a professional scientist is more likely to make a significant contribution to science if he/she is motivated by the love of discovery. We can’t infer this for sure from the passage. We’re only told that amateur scientists are motivated by the love of discovery alone, but we aren’t told that the motivation has anything to do with making a significant contribution to science. Nothing links these two concepts, and so we can’t conclude (E) as a matter of logical necessity from the statements in the stimulus.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.