Question

you should plan on reading a primary research scientific journal article in the order is is presented: abstract -> introduction -> methods -> results -> discussion -> conclusion.
true
false

Explanation:

While the order abstract -> introduction -> methods -> results -> discussion -> conclusion is the presentation order of a primary research scientific journal article, an effective reading strategy often doesn't follow this order strictly (e.g., one might read abstract, then discussion/conclusion, then methods/results, etc.). But the question is about the order it is presented, not the reading strategy. Wait, no—wait, the statement says "You should plan on reading... in the order it is presented". However, typically, for reading efficiency, people don't read in the presented order (they might skip or read out of order), but the article's structure is presented as abstract, intro, methods, results, discussion, conclusion. Wait, no, the key here: the article is structured (presented) as abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion. But the advice of "should plan on reading" in that order—actually, many scientific reading strategies suggest not reading in the presented order (e.g., read abstract, then discussion/conclusion to get the takeaway, then methods/results). But the question is whether the statement is true or false. Wait, the article's presentation order is abstract -> intro -> methods -> results -> discussion -> conclusion. But the advice to "plan on reading" in that order—actually, that's not the recommended reading strategy, but the question is about the order the article is presented. Wait, no, the statement is: "You should plan on reading a primary research scientific journal article in the order it is presented: abstract -> introduction -> methods -> results -> discussion -> conclusion." But the recommended reading strategy for scientific papers is often not to read in the presented order (e.g., read abstract, then discussion/conclusion, then methods/results, then introduction). So the statement's advice to read in the presented order is not the best practice, so the answer is False? Wait, no—wait, the article's structure (the order it is presented) is abstract, intro, methods, results, discussion, conclusion. But the question is about whether you SHOULD read in that order. Since effective reading of scientific papers often involves a different order (to save time and understand the key points), the statement is false.

Answer:

False