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?

a. Even biomedical researchers who are just beginning their careers are expected already to have published articles of major significance to the field.
b. Contributions to the field of biomedical research are generally considered to be significant only if the work is published.
c. The potential scientific importance of not-yet-published work is sometimes taken into account in decisions regarding the hiring or promotion of biomedical researchers.
d. 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.
e. 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.

Can some Instructor help me ?
I could not understand how to crack this gmatprep question.
I marked C. OA: E.

How does the fact that "fragmenting research finding so that they are published in several journals instead of one" helps?
The argument is concerned about "overall impact that a candidate's scientific publications" rather than "number of publications".

I think i got the interpretation wrong. After careful analysis, I found that the argument is supposed to be true and using that we have to attack the answer choices.
i.e. weaken the claims presented in the answer options using the above argument.
Whoa !!!
I was sleeping :)

I still don't understand why "B" is not the right answer.

The first statement of the paragraph states that hiring and promotions depend on significantly on the amount of their published work. However, conclusion says that its not the publications as much rather the impact the published work has.

I think to weaken the argument the answer need to strength the first statement.

Can someone please explain what I am missing

Can someone please tell how to solve this question ?

Basically how to solve "Most strongly against questions " ?

The author contends that contrary to the assumption, those who hire and promote people in biomedical research field put more emphasis on the impact a candidate's scientific publications have on his or her field than the number of those publications.

To argue against this conclusion, we need to show that total number of publications is considered more important , in at least some cases, by those who hire.

Choice E clearly states this.:

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.

i.e publishing in several journals or incresing the number of publications increases the probablility of promotion

this is a good analysis. basically, you need the choice that's fundamentally opposed to the original passage.

well done.

(b) is irrelevant because it has to do with the distinction between published and unpublished work.

this distinction has nothing to do with the passage, which is concerned only with published work. (the distinction in the passage is concerned with the frequency and variety of publications, not whether the findings are published to start with.)