Popular Scientist

[sunny.jain]

Source: GMAT Prep
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

(A) serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues
(B) research scientists tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy
(C) a scientist can become a famous popularizer without having completed any important research
(D) research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research
(E) no important new research can be accessible to or accurately assessed by those who are not themselves scientists

I really did not understand how to find assumption here?
assumption must be something that will link:
popular scientist <---> should not be regarded as true colleague

If I go by my method of elimination:
Option A) :talking about serious scientific activity is can not done by alone, it need a group of ppl : thats make them conclude that popular scientist is not a true colleauge. But no where it is mention that Serious S A makes the scientist popular.

B): R.Scientist tend not to regards as blah blah :- talks why they don't want to consider colleague to scientist. But Q here is that why popular scientist is not a true colleague what make them think this?
C) Yeah, but this is not a definition of true colleague. ( TC : ppl with similar motivation)
D) talk about all major subjects of conclusion: Research Scientist and popular scientist. But did not really understand how it is link to conclusion.
E) talking about important research : Out of Scope.

I thought of A. But it is not the answer?
Can any one explain me with proper reasoning ?

[anoo.anand]

Answer should be D

> if u negate D

i.e. if the motivation is not decreased then there is no problem with doing research with those guys...
the argument falls in this case

since > to do research > motivation is required

> if motivation goes by becoming RENOWN then...there shud not be any reasearch with those guys.

thus ans D , please let me know the answer.

[RonPurewal]

Answer should be D

> if u negate D

i.e. if the motivation is not decreased then there is no problem with doing research with those guys...
the argument falls in this case

since > to do research > motivation is required

> if motivation goes by becoming RENOWN then...there shud not be any reasearch with those guys.

thus ans D , please let me know the answer.

yes. nice use of the negation technique.

[RonPurewal]

@ sunny:

I really did not understand how to find assumption here?
assumption must be something that will link:
popular scientist <---> should not be regarded as true colleague

that's a perfect analysis, which should point clearly to (d) as the correct answer.

the passage already says that
not doing important research <--> should not be regarded as colleague

so, if you add in assumption (d), you get

popularizer <--> not doing important research <--> should not be regarded as colleague
...which is exactly what you are looking for.

[sunny.jain]

thank Ron,,,you are a champ...!

[RonPurewal]

thank Ron,,,you are a champ...!

no problem

[vivek.bs2010]

I'm not very clear on anoo.anand's negation technique. Could someone please explain that again?

My train of thought for this question (and assumption questions in general) went like this. If you think this can't be generalized, please tell me so.

What do we know? - Scientists >> have motivation to do important research >> accept others with motivation to do research as colleagues.
What is being stated? - renowned expounders of science >> shouldn't be regarded as colleagues.
The missing link in what is stated is the hidden assumption, i.e. the second step of what we know.
What is being asked? - Assumption. Bingo! look out for answers that contain the missing link.

I haven't read any books for critical reasoning, and so, I solve CR questions by instinct.
Can I formalize this thought process for all assumption type of questions?

[RonPurewal]

I'm not very clear on anoo.anand's negation technique. Could someone please explain that again?

if necessary, watch the march 4, 2010, lecture at this link:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm

among other things, that lecture contains an explanation of the negation/reversal method for assumption problems.

I haven't read any books for critical reasoning, and so, I solve CR questions by instinct.

this is a good thing! most CR problem types REQUIRE intuition and/or common sense; many, including strengthening/weakening and "explain the situation" problems, can't be solved with any kind of formal logic or memorized rules.

in general, you should use your intuition whenever possible; i don't think it's necessary for you to study CR formally, except on problem types that you are consistently getting wrong.