Passage Summary: Universities try to measure how good a scientist is by counting how many times their work is cited. The problem is that this encourages scientists to do quick, 'trendy' studies to get high numbers, rather than doing the deep, long-term work that actually moves science forward.

Conclusion: Using citation analysis as the primary measure of research quality actually undermines the goal of encouraging high-quality research.

Reasoning: Scientists will prioritize short-term, trendy projects to boost their citation counts rather than engaging in long-term research projects.

Analysis: To strengthen this argument, we need to bridge the gap between 'short-term faddish projects' and 'bad research.' The author assumes that moving away from multiyear projects is a bad thing for the quality of science. Look for an answer that confirms this assumption—perhaps by stating that long-term projects are essential for significant scientific breakthroughs or that faddish research is generally of lower quality. We want to solidify the idea that the behavior change caused by citation counting is detrimental to the ultimate goal of 'good research.'