The following text is from Dr. Elena Rodriguez's 2020 research proposal submitted to the National Institutes of Health.Several colleagues have...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
The following text is from Dr. Elena Rodriguez's 2020 research proposal submitted to the National Institutes of Health.
Several colleagues have questioned my decision to integrate traditional laboratory methods with community-based participatory research, suggesting that this hybrid approach compromises scientific objectivity. I understand their concerns about methodological purity, but I believe this criticism overlooks the fundamental goal of my work. My intention is not to abandon rigorous scientific standards or to prioritize community input over empirical data. Rather, I aim to establish a new model for health research—one that combines controlled clinical studies with grassroots community engagement to better understand how social determinants affect disease progression in underserved populations.
Which choice best describes the overall structure of the text?
The researcher addresses professional criticism of her methods, then explains her research objectives.
The researcher acknowledges limitations in current studies, then proposes methodological improvements.
The researcher dismisses opposing viewpoints, then promotes her academic qualifications.
The researcher questions established scientific practices, then suggests institutional reforms.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Several colleagues have questioned my decision to integrate traditional laboratory methods with community-based participatory research, suggesting that this hybrid approach compromises scientific objectivity. |
|
| I understand their concerns about methodological purity, but I believe this criticism overlooks the fundamental goal of my work. |
|
| My intention is not to abandon rigorous scientific standards or to prioritize community input over empirical data. |
|
| Rather, I aim to establish a new model for health research—one that combines controlled clinical studies with grassroots community engagement to better understand how social determinants affect disease progression in underserved populations. |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Rodriguez defends her hybrid research approach by clarifying that her goal is to create a new model combining rigorous science with community engagement, not to compromise scientific standards.
Argument Flow: Rodriguez first presents the criticism she's received about her hybrid methodology, then responds by acknowledging concerns while explaining that critics miss her fundamental goal—which is to establish a new research model that maintains scientific rigor while incorporating community engagement to better serve underserved populations.
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
- The structure follows a clear pattern: Rodriguez starts by presenting the criticism she's facing from colleagues about her research methods, then shifts to explaining what her actual research objectives are
- She's essentially doing damage control—addressing the criticism first, then clarifying her real goals
- The right answer should capture this two-part structure: first addressing criticism, then explaining her objectives
- The right answer should show that Rodriguez deals with professional criticism first, then explains what she's actually trying to accomplish
The researcher addresses professional criticism of her methods, then explains her research objectives.
✓ Correct
- This perfectly captures the structure we identified
- Addresses professional criticism matches the opening where colleagues question her methods
- Then explains her research objectives matches the second half where she clarifies her actual goals
- The progression from criticism to objectives is exactly what we see
The researcher acknowledges limitations in current studies, then proposes methodological improvements.
✗ Incorrect
- Says she acknowledges limitations in current studies but she never discusses problems with existing research
- Proposes methodological improvements doesn't capture her defensive response to criticism
- This makes it sound like she's critiquing the field rather than defending her own approach
The researcher dismisses opposing viewpoints, then promotes her academic qualifications.
✗ Incorrect
- Dismisses opposing viewpoints is too strong—she actually says I understand their concerns
- Promotes her academic qualifications isn't what happens—she explains her research goals, not her credentials
- What trap this represents: Students might think dismisses works because she disagrees with critics, but dismissing and disagreeing while acknowledging concerns are very different
The researcher questions established scientific practices, then suggests institutional reforms.
✗ Incorrect
- Questions established scientific practices misses the mark—she's defending her own practices, not attacking traditional ones
- Suggests institutional reforms goes too far—she's proposing a research model, not systemic changes
- This choice makes her sound more revolutionary than she actually is