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。
问反驳
E. 当作者把文章拆分成多个发布后,有更大机会被升职
一切都要落到升职上,B选项错误
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
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
这样的话E比B合适
即,本题的题目要求是找出conclusion(原文最后一句)的对立观点
而不是削弱原推理啊啊啊!!!!
D 有能力给出公平评价。。无关
E 研究院可以通过分割研究成果从而出版发行多 达成promote。。原文说了看质量,业界影响怎么样,不是数量
原文:评定一个研究人员的是否雇佣是否晋升,应该根据作品质量而不是作品数量
E 研究人员可以通过拆分他们的研究放在数个杂志上而不是一个 来提高他们的晋升机会 削弱
错因:题干问题的方式没有理解
E人们增加数量(错)
本题没有结论,归为演绎推理题。
题干的意思是hirings and promotions depend on the amount of their published work(是不正确的);overall impact that a candidate's scientific publications have会有更大的影响;
题目问的是:下面结论(选项)是文中反对的;那就是认为可以通过更多的published work来获取hirings and promotions (E选项)