June 2007 PrepTest, Section 2, Question 18
Modern science is built on the process of posing hypotheses and testing them against observations—in essence, attempting to show that the hypotheses are incorrect. Nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom. It is accordingly unsurprising that some scientists are skeptical of the widely accepted predictions of global warming. What is instead remarkable is that with hundreds of researchers striving to make breakthroughs in climatology, very few find evidence that global warming is unlikely.
Modern science is built on the process of posing hypotheses and testing them against observations—in essence, attempting to show that the hypotheses are incorrect. Nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom. It is accordingly unsurprising that some scientists are skeptical of the widely accepted predictions of global warming. What is instead remarkable is that with hundreds of researchers striving to make breakthroughs in climatology, very few find evidence that global warming is unlikely.
Modern science is built on the process of posing hypotheses and testing them against observations—in essence, attempting to show that the hypotheses are incorrect. Nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom. It is accordingly unsurprising that some scientists are skeptical of the widely accepted predictions of global warming. What is instead remarkable is that with hundreds of researchers striving to make breakthroughs in climatology, very few find evidence that global warming is unlikely.
Modern science is built on the process of posing hypotheses and testing them against observations—in essence, attempting to show that the hypotheses are incorrect. Nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom. It is accordingly unsurprising that some scientists are skeptical of the widely accepted predictions of global warming. What is instead remarkable is that with hundreds of researchers striving to make breakthroughs in climatology, very few find evidence that global warming is unlikely.
The information above provides the most support for which one of the following statements?
Most scientists who are reluctant to accept the global warming hypothesis are not acting in accordance with the accepted standards of scientific debate.
Most researchers in climatology have substantial motive to find evidence that would discredit the global warming hypothesis.
There is evidence that conclusively shows that the global warming hypothesis is true.
Scientists who are skeptical about global warming have not offered any alternative hypotheses to explain climatological data.
Research in global warming is primarily driven by a desire for recognition in the scientific community.
Explanations
So basically, scientists are using modern science: Trying to show that the hypothesis (“global warming is real”) is wrong. If recognition is an incentive (which we can safely assume it is), and we infer that “widely accepted” means “conventional wisdom,” then scientists have incentive to disprove global warming. And yet, scientists haven’t disproven global warming. What does that tell you?
We don’t know if the skeptics are the ones testing the hypothesis or not.
“Most” might make you rethink this answer choice, but it isn’t as bad as you think. We could conceivably say “all” even. What scientist doesn’t want to receive recognition? “Most” is actually pretty safe, because it accounts for the tiny fraction of scientists who for whatever reason don’t want recognition for their hard work. Also, remember, there can be “motive” to discredit something, but also motive to not discredit it (think monetary motive vs. moral motive, for example).
No, there just isn’t evidence showing the opposite.
I’d be willing to bet they have. The passage doesn’t say either way, however.
We don’t know that scientists do it primarily to receive recognition. The prospect of receiving recognition is certainly a motive, though.
0 Comments