Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical found in minute quantities in most drinking water had an ad...

Victoria July 21, 2020

Hi @kenken,

Happy to help!

The author concludes that the scientific establishment was conspiring to discredit Professor Smith's work which found that a chemical found in most drinking water had adverse effects on the human nervous system.

Why? Because well-known scientists in the field published several papers following Professor Smith's, all of which disproved Smith's conclusion.

The author draws a conclusion about the motives of the other scientists based on no evidence. The scientists published papers proving Smith wrong; therefore, they must have been conspiring against Smith because they felt threatened.

Answer choice (C) highlights this flaw. The author of the passage fails to outline why they have concluded that the other scientists must have been conspiring against Smith. It is entirely possible that the scientists were motivated by a desire to present the truth. This is what answer choice (C) is saying - the author fails to show us why the scientists were conspiring against Smith and why they weren't writing these papers with a different motivation e.g. for the purpose of definitively establishing the truth.

Hope this helps clear things up! Please let us know if you have any further questions.

JackJ June 23, 2024

In your response, you said "the author fails to show us why the scientists were conspiring against Smith and why they weren't writing these papers with a different motivation e.g. for the purpose of definitively establishing the truth." I believe in order for your explanation to be correct it should read, "the author fails to show us why the scientists were conspiring against Smith and THAT they weren't writing these papers with a different motivation e.g. for the purpose of definitively establishing the truth." Not Why they weren't, because the author would simply have to allege That they weren't in order to make a valid argument. When it comes to the answer choice, "The author fails to show why the other scientists could not have been presenting evidence in order to establish the truth of the matter. " I argue the author would not have to show WHY the other scientists COULD NOT have been presenting evidence in order to establish truth, but the author would have to establish THAT the scientists WERE NOT presenting evidence to establish truth. The nuance of including the word "Why" makes the answer choice invalid, because the author does not need to allege why in order to make their argument valid, only whether or not the scientists actually did. If I am incorrect please enlighten me.

Emil-Kunkin June 25, 2024

I think those two terms are effectively interchangeable in normal speech in this context: and either way it's clear from context that the intended effect was close to the term "that."

To say the author failed to show why they were not writing for some other motivation really doesn't make much sense unless we read it to mean that the author did not eliminate a possibility- so giving it the same effect as a that.

I think this level of detail is great when attacking answer Choices and the passages, but not a great use of your time to dissect word choice in an explanation where the meaning is clear.