A research consortium funded under Horizon Europe published a study showing that peer-reviewed articles co-authored by researchers from at least three different EU Member States received, on average, 45% more citations than single-country articles in the same fields. The consortium concluded from this finding that the EU's policy of funding cross-border collaborative research grants produces higher-quality science than national funding schemes that support single-institution projects.
The consortium's conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?
Scegli la tua risposta
Spiegazione
Negation test applied: if citation counts are NOT a reliable proxy for research quality — for example, if citation rates reflect social-network effects from having more co-authors in more countries, or if highly cited articles are not necessarily the most scientifically significant — then the finding about citations does not support the conclusion about quality. The entire inferential step from 'more citations' to 'higher quality science' depends on this assumption. Choice A about motivation is an interesting distractor but the argument does not depend on why collaboration happens. Choice C is a close miss — it addresses a potential confound but is not strictly necessary to the quality-from-citations step. Choice D about journal prestige is sufficient to strengthen the argument but not necessary for the basic citation-quality link. Choice E about funding amounts is entirely outside the argument's logical structure.
