The passage deals with 2 different point of views on Hiring and Promotion (H&P) of medical researchers.

1. Junior Researchers view -> H&P depends on amount/ number of publications
2. Recruiters view -> H&P depends on impact of publication(s)

Claims that can be made, based on the above :

1. Junior researchers view is different from Recruiters view.
2. Impact matter more (or less) than number of publications in hiring decisions (assuming another premise states that)


The information above, if accurate, argues most strongly against which of the following claims?

Question asks us that the above data will most strongly oppose which of the conclusions provided. Any option that contradicts any inference that can be derived from the two premises will be a strong contender. This can be done using negation technique.

(A) Even biomedical researchers who are just beginning their careers are expected already to have published articles of major significance to the field.
(Negation does not change anything. Out of scope)

(B) Contributions to the field of biomedical research are generally considered to be significant only if the work is published.
(Deals with Published vs Unpublished work. Out of scope)

(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.
(Deals with importance of unpublished work. Irrelevant)

(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.
(Talks about the ability of recruiters. Out of Scope)
(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.
(This is CORRECT. Negate it and it directly falls in line with one of our conclusions)
+1
Kudos