What is the author's main conclusion?
A finding is not science until it has been repeated. Yet in several fields, attempts to replicate celebrated studies have often failed. Some commentators conclude that science is broken. That goes too far. Failed replications are themselves scientific results, and the fact that they are being published shows the system correcting itself. The real defect lies in incentives: journals reward novelty, careers depend on publishing positive results, and nobody gains from confirming what is already believed. Changes such as registering study plans in advance and publishing negative results would shift the balance. It is a mistake to treat a self-correcting system's discovery of its own flaws as proof that it cannot be trusted.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. The replication problem exposes flawed incentives but also shows science correcting itself
- Step 1: The passage says it goes too far to call science broken, locates the defect in incentives and notes the system is correcting itself.
- Step 2: The only choice consistent with this is "The replication problem exposes flawed incentives but also shows science correcting itself".
Answer
The replication problem exposes flawed incentives but also shows science correcting itself.
Why not the others: The author denies that science is broken, does not say celebrated studies are always false, criticises rewards for novelty rather than supporting them and says careers do depend on publishing.
Practise more Science and evidence.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.