Critical Reasoning

In the problem we are required to choose an alternative that suggests that, the funding shall not increase. Hence, i selected option b), just as the best out of the worst alternative mentioned even if b) does not talk about ,”no increase in funding”. I say so because none of the other options seem to cause, “no increase in funding”. The correct option, however, is a) suggesting, an alternate cause for the cancer. To me option a) appears out of scope as, rather than discussing occurrence of cancer the option seems to discuss the cause of cancer. As a student I wish to understand and learn

1.why is option a)correct or incorrect?
2. Whether there is a problem with the way question is framed?
3. Some flaw in my understanding.

Thanks in advance.

ashish1354 wrote:In the problem we are required to choose an alternative that suggests that, the funding shall not increase. Hence, i selected option b), just as the best out of the worst alternative mentioned even if b) does not talk about ,”no increase in funding”. I say so because none of the other options seem to cause, “no increase in funding”. The correct option, however, is a) suggesting, an alternate cause for the cancer. To me option a) appears out of scope as, rather than discussing occurrence of cancer the option seems to discuss the cause of cancer. As a student I wish to understand and learn

1.why is option a)correct or incorrect?
2. Whether there is a problem with the way question is framed?
3. Some flaw in my understanding.

Thanks in advance.

The question is asking which among the choices "least" supports the argument. Choice B says that in the last 5 years, several famous women have been stiken with breast cancer & given interviews. This in turn will get funding for research. The other choices also support the argument.

Choice A says the alternate reason for the cancer to occur. Which means that no research is required. Or atleast, they believe that the cause is environmental. So, even though this supports the argument, its the least supportive among the answer choices.

Hope that helps.

Hi Vemuri,
Thanks for replying.
even if the primary cause is environmental, the stimuli doesn't suggest that research is futile if cause in environmental. Research will still be useful to ascertain environmental causes.

i felt b) more relevant because it suggests that since 5 years famous women have vouching for the cause and no increase in funds has been suggested.

share your thoughts

Hey,

Lets paraphrase the question to better understand what is being asked.

More cases of breast cancer will attract more media attention leading to increased funding for research. Which among the options will least support this argument.

A --> Does not mention anything about the number of breast cancer cases or the media attention. The statement does not indicate that any sort of research or funding is required. Least supportive.

B --> Famous women were effected & thereby more media coverage which inturn will attract philanthropic contributions. This option highly supports the argument.

C --> Supports by saying that increased media coverage has provided financial support from philanthropic foundations

D --> Supports by negating, indicating that media coverage & financial support is required.

E --> In recent years the increased occurences of breast cancer is a cause of concern & so will attract attention. Supports the argument.

Hope this helps