#18 - A large survey of scientists found that almost all

[Robert Carroll]

glasann,

You can connect two "most" statements in certain situations. There's an example at this link, which I'll quote: viewtopic.php?t=17137

The reason the above works is because the two Mosts both originate from the exact same group (B, in the case above). Imagine the following two statements:

Most doctors are smart. ( D S )
Most doctors are wealthy. ( D W )
If there are 100 doctors, then at least 51 are smart and at least 51 are wealthy. So, there has to be an overlap there, leading to the inference that Some smart doctors are wealthy.

"Almost all" certainly overlaps with "most". It's definitely stronger - 51 out of 100 would not be "almost all". But it's impossible to give an exact numerical range. I think it's quite safe to say that "almost all" covers something above 80% - the range of "almost all" is, I think, narrower than that (it probably starts far above 80%), but it's at least safe to say that "almost all" requires more than 80%.

With that in mind, in this situation, the premises therefore allow us to infer that a majority of scientists surveyed simultaneously accept Wang's Law and know the results of the Brown-Eisler Experiment. That's already proven, so we don't need to add anything to the argument. Note that one thing we're not told is how many scientists know anything about how the Law and the Experiment impact the Minsk Hypothesis. As is no surprise, the correct answer addresses that gap in the argument.

Robert Carroll

[queenbee]

Hi

Seems like I am outlier here. I selected (E). If Wang's Law is true, doesnt that do it all? People know the results of the BE experiment, and that's nice, but if Wangs law is not true, isn't that a bigger problem and everything falls apart after that?
Why does having to know about both the law WITH the B-E results matter. If the law is true, and B-E results contradict the law, it could be that the experiment was flawed.

Would appreciate some help.
Thank you!

[Paul Popa]

Hi Queen,

Great question. I would say that the stimulus doesn't actually concern itself with factual reality, just perception. We see that the scientists "accept" Wang's Law, "know the results of" the B-E experiment, and (supposedly) "reject" the Minsk Hypothesis. We see the scientists accept Wang's Law, so whether or not the Law has been proven to be true is actually not necessary.

The more pertinent issue here is awareness. Imagine if the scientists were being interviewed and were asked these questions:

Q: Do you accept Wang's Law?
A: Yes, I do.

Q: Do you know the results of the Brown-Eisler experiment?
A: Yep!

Q: Great! Do you therefore reject the Minsk Hypothesis?

The answer to this last question is not a guaranteed yes or no. It could also be "I'm not aware of a Minsk Hypothesis." For them to be able to reject a hypothesis, they have to know what it is, or at very least, have been learned somewhere that Wang's Law and the results of the B-E experiment contradict the Minsk Hypothesis. Thats why (A) is necessary. The scientists surveyed have to have been made aware, somehow, some way, that there is a contradiction to state they reject the hypothesis. Otherwise, they could say "Not aware" or "No opinion." Hope this helps!

[electricwatt]

Hi Team,

I am getting a better understanding of why B is not true but I am having a hard time understanding or being convinced by A.

Even the scientists are generally aware of the Brown-Eisler experiment with Wang's law contradict Minsk, the stimulus only says they know the results -- not that they accept them. Even if they know of the results, doesnt mean they accept them which doesnt require they reject the Minsk hypothesis. Could you guys please explain to me why A has to be required for conclusion to be true? When you negate A, I also dont see how it destroys the conclusion.

Maybe I am overthinking

[Dana D]

Hey electricwatt,

You are correct in stating that awareness does not equal automatic rejection, however consider the content and context of the stimulus here. Wang's Law is an accepted scientific "truth" - it has been tested and verified and accepted by most of the surveyed scientists. The Minsk Hypothesis, in comparison, is a theory. Hypotheses are not yet tested or verified via experiment. If there was a scientific experiment, like the Brown-Eisler Experiment, which, when combined with an accepted scientific truth such as Wang's Law, contradicted a hypothesis, it makes sense to assume the scientists would reject the hypothesis. This is a normal part of the scientific process - a hypothesis is proposed, it is tested, and based on the results of the experiment, it can be accepted, refined, or rejected.

Answer choice (A) is necessary because if most of the scientists surveyed are aware that the BE Experiment and Wang's Law contradict the hypothesis, it makes sense to conclude most surveyed scientists would reject the experiment. However, if most scientists did not know of the contradiction, we cannot be sure they would reject the hypothesis.

Hope that helps!