ChaseDream

标题: 费费 73 [打印本页]

作者: nina_nn    时间: 2007-3-29 18:25
标题: 费费 73

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.

(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.

(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.

(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.

(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

 

答案是a,怎么分析的?


作者: alsokkk    时间: 2007-3-29 21:16
说说我的理解。
本题的结论是:一位科学家的研究成果在出版之前不需要通过正式的论证。理由是:存在一个(非正式的)系统,即其他科学家的科学发现来肯定或者否定该科学家的成果(replication在这里应该是回响,反应的意思)。因此,即使该科学家的工作不是那么严谨也没有关系,因为其他科学家的科学成果会弥补该科学家的错误和疏漏。
A为削弱。因为如果一些科学实验在很多年都没有被质疑,那么即使他们存在问题我们也都无法知道了。
B无关。此题的重点不是将科学成果送到哪里论证,而是是否要进行论证。
C科学家希望自己的成果受到人们关注和反应,因此有压力。无关
D有疏漏的报告比较普遍。无关
E无关

作者: nina_nn    时间: 2007-3-29 22:22

明白了~~






欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3