Academic investigators frequently produce publications that draw upon earlier work to support their theoretical positions, and these scholarly works o...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
Academic investigators frequently produce publications that draw upon earlier work to support their theoretical positions, and these scholarly works often reference and examine research from various time periods. Educational science scholar Dr. Maria Santos contends that although academic investigators have a natural inclination to emphasize studies with outcomes that support their own results, the most rigorous scholarly publications systematically examine potential inconsistencies; therefore, including studies whose results contradict their own conclusions might ______
Which choice most logically completes the text?
enhance the credibility of the positions academic investigators advance in their scholarly works.
enable academic investigators to produce publications while avoiding comprehensive literature surveys.
render scholarly works more understandable to audiences lacking specialized academic background.
align scholarly publications with findings that have broad acceptance within the research community.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 'Academic investigators frequently produce publications that draw upon earlier work to support their theoretical positions, and these scholarly works often reference and examine research from various time periods.' |
|
| 'Educational science scholar Dr. Maria Santos contends that although academic investigators have a natural inclination to emphasize studies with outcomes that support their own results,' |
|
| 'the most rigorous scholarly publications systematically examine potential inconsistencies;' |
|
| 'therefore, including studies whose results contradict their own conclusions might ______' |
|
Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Dr. Santos argues that while academics naturally prefer supportive evidence, the most rigorous publications examine inconsistencies, suggesting that including contradictory studies serves an important purpose.
Argument Flow: The passage establishes typical academic practice, then introduces Santos's observation contrasting natural bias with rigorous methodology. This sets up a logical conclusion about why including contradictory evidence might be beneficial for scholarly work.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- Santos's argument creates a clear contrast: academics naturally want to emphasize supportive studies, but rigorous work systematically examines inconsistencies
- If the most credible publications examine potential problems and contradictions, then including studies that contradict your conclusions would logically make your work more trustworthy and credible
- It shows you're being thorough rather than cherry-picking only favorable evidence
- The right answer should explain how including contradictory studies benefits the quality or perception of scholarly work, specifically by demonstrating thoroughness and objectivity rather than bias
enhance the credibility of the positions academic investigators advance in their scholarly works.
✓ Correct
- This directly follows from Santos's logic about rigorous publications
- Including contradictory studies shows thoroughness rather than bias, which would make positions more credible
- Matches our prethinking about demonstrating objectivity and trustworthiness
enable academic investigators to produce publications while avoiding comprehensive literature surveys.
✗ Incorrect
- Claims including contradictory studies helps avoid comprehensive literature surveys
- This contradicts Santos's point about rigorous work - examining inconsistencies requires MORE comprehensive review, not less
render scholarly works more understandable to audiences lacking specialized academic background.
✗ Incorrect
- Suggests contradictory studies make work more understandable to general audiences
- Santos's argument is about scholarly rigor, not accessibility to non-experts
align scholarly publications with findings that have broad acceptance within the research community.
✗ Incorrect
- Claims contradictory studies help align work with broadly accepted findings
- This misses the point - including contradictory studies doesn't align with accepted findings; it examines opposing evidence