Junior biomedical researchers have long assumed that their hirings and promotions depend significantly on the amount of their published work. People responsible for making hiring and promotion decisions in the biomedical research field, however, are influenced much more by the overall impact that a candidate's scientific publications have on his or her field than by the number of those publications.
The information above, if accurate, argues most strongly against which of the following claims?
Even biomedical researchers who are just beginning their careers are expected already to have published articles of major significance to the field.
Contributions to the field of biomedical research are generally considered to be significant only if the work is published.
The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is sometimes taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers.
People responsible for hiring or promoting biomedical researchers can reasonably be expected to make a fair assessment of the overall impact of a candidate's publications on his or her field.
Biomedical researchers can substantially increase their chances of promotion by fragmenting their research findings so that they are published in several journals instead of one.
情景:研究者一直认为它们的雇佣和升值是源自于他们发布文章的数量。但是,实际上,更重要的是出版物的质量和影响,而不是数量本身。
推理:本题问:“原文的信息,会和下列哪一个形成反驳关系”?因此,本题并不是让我们评估一个推理,而是依据推理文段的信息继续推断,其推理方式为:必然性推理。
原文内容其实就是在说,应该是按照论文的质量而非是数量来判断一个人的雇佣和升职。看懂题目,就应当会做。下面我只做翻译,不在赘述解题的思路。
选题方式:略
选项分析:
A选项:就算是那些刚刚进入生物医药领域的人也会期待自己已经发表了该领域重大发现的文章。
B选项:仅当论文发表的时候,其对于生物医药领域的贡献才会被认为是显著的。
C选项:未发表论文的潜在科技重要性也会在被雇佣和升职中作为一个参考。
为什么不能选B呀?B也和文章结论相反啊
题干说 “这些人更看重候选人出版物对其领域的影响,而不是看出版物的数量”。其实题目从头到尾谈论的都是published——出版后的作品,等同于默认了作品出版发表后才能对相应领域产生贡献(想象一下你写了再多牛逼的论文但是没有发表,如何对领域产生影响)。 所以B项更接近support而不是against
懂了,谢谢!
感觉b更像是 假设 是前提 ,就是文章默认的信息 有些题目会出现这种选项,挺烦人的
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论