7. 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.
不明白其中道理，请指点！
谢斑竹修改，我以后注意。
请牛人指教啊！！！！
谢谢斑竹指点。我又看了几遍题目，还是没有理解出A有以上的意思。倒是自己又琢磨出一点理由。原文说Poor scientific work is not harmful因为It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.但是A指出，一些结果在被replicated之前将肆略多年，也就是will be harmful for many years 如果该成果有误的话。所以是削弱。呵呵，自圆其说罢了。其实这题另外四个选项一看就不对，也就是A绕点，时间不足时蒙也蒙它了。
原文的结论在第二句话。就是用REPLICATION 的方法可以代替官方确认科学实验。后面的只是说明这种replication的情况。A的意思是有些实验在被replication（以便确认）前，可以很多年经受challenge（即可以CONFIRM）。所以假如很多年后再replication发现不符合原实验，这种情况下你能说该实验不科学，不能被CONFIRM吗。显然不行。所以WEAKEN原文结论。其实A提出一个时间的因素。
原文的结论在第二句话。就是用REPLICATION 的方法可以代替官方确认科学实验。后面的只是说明这种replication的情况。A的意思是有些实验在被replication（以便确认）前，可以很多年经受challenge（即可以CONFIRM）。所以假如很多年后再replication发现不符合原实验，这种情况下你能说该实验不科学，不能被CONFIRM吗。显然不行。所以WEAKEN原文结论。其实A提出一个时间的因素。
A是时间因素，但我觉得A是说：
如果不confirm就publish,万一many years都没有人能challenge,直到某年才出了一个能replicate的，那么replicate显然没有时效性，它让错误的理论横行多年。
对么？
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |