Question ID:PT65 S4 Q22 Passage:Scientist: Physicists claim that their system of careful peer review prevents scientific fraud in physics effectively. But biologists claimed the same thing for their field 20 years ago, and they turned out to be wrong. Since then, biologists have greatly enhanced their discipline's safeguards against scientific fraud, thus preventing further major incidents. It would be conducive to progress in physics if physicists were to do the same thing. Stem:The conclusion of the scientist's argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following is assumed? Correct Answer Choice:AChoice A:Major incidents of scientific fraud in a scientific discipline are deleterious to progress in that discipline. Choice B:Very few incidents of even minor scientific fraud have occurred in biology over the last 20 years. Choice C:No system of careful peer review is completely effective in preventing scientific fraud in any scientific discipline. Choice D:Twenty years ago the system of peer review in biology was less effective in preventing scientific fraud than the system of peer review in physics is today. Choice E:Over the years, there have been relatively few, if any, major incidents of scientific fraud in physics.