Science writer: Scientists often accept a scientific argument largely for social reasons, such as the argument's acceptance by other scientists or the prestige of the scientist making the argument.
Conclusion (But)
Scientists accepting arguments for social reasons is not at all to the sciences' detriment.
Evidence (For)
Similar social factors strongly influence every human endeavor.
The setup, which the writer accepts, is that scientists often accept an argument largely because other scientists accept it or because its author is prestigious.
Evaluate
The science writer concedes something that sounds bad for science, that arguments win acceptance through prestige and consensus rather than merit, and then waves it away. The reason given is that every human endeavor works this way. Everybody does it, so it does science no harm.
That inference does not hold. Whether a behavior hurts science depends on whether it gets in the way of what science is trying to do, such as sorting true claims from false ones. How common the behavior is in law, business, or art tells us nothing about that. A habit could be universal and still damaging to science in particular, or damaging everywhere. The writer has treated "this happens in every field" as if it settled "this does science no harm," and the two questions are independent. This is a comparison standing in for an evaluation.
Goal
Look for an answer that says the writer judged whether a behavior harms science by how prevalent it is elsewhere, rather than by its effect on science's own goals.