Personal Investment

Welcome! You are encouraged to register with the site and login (for free). When you register, you support the site and your question history is saved.

Investment by a scientist in an established theory, especially because it has helped to attribute unobservable causes to phenomena, makes it likely to overlook gaps in the observable data or justify them too readily.

Review: Personal Investment


Explanation

Creating a filter: in the original sentence, the two instances of the pronoun "it" jump out as worthy of suspicion. The second "it" has no reference, and the first is ambiguous between "investment" and "theory." We can eliminate (A) on these grounds.

Applying the filter: choice (B) solves the problem in (A), but the wording in (B) indicates that the scientist makes gaps likely; that's contrary to the intended meaning, so (B) is out. Choice (C) has a problem with its second pronoun "it"; it's ambiguous. Choice (C) is out. Choice (D) has broken parallelism between "overlook" and "justifying." So (D) is out, and we are down to (E). Choice (E) looks good. There is no ambiguity of pronoun, and the intended meaning is clear: the investment can make scientists overlook gaps. The correct answer is (E).


If you believe you have found an error in this question or explanation, please contact us and include the question title or URL in your message.