Critical Reasoning

Hi All,

I have a doubt regarding the reasoning behind this OG 13 question:

Social scientists are underrepresented on the advisory councils of the National Institutes of Health(NIH). Since these councils advise NIH directors and recommend policy, the underrepresentation of social scientists results in a relative lack of NIH financial support for research in the social sciences.

If the statements above are correct, they most strongly support which of the following?

(A) A significant increase in the size of NIH advisory councils would be required in order to increase the representation of social scientists on these councils.

(B)A significant increase in the representation of social scientists on NIH advisory councils would result in an increase in NIH funding for social science research.

(C)A significant increase in funding for social science research would result in improved policy recommendations to NIH directors.

(D)A significant increase in funding for the training of social scientists would result in an increase in the number of social scientist on NIH advisory councils.

(E)A significant increase in the representation of social scientists on NIH advisory councils would have to precede any increase in the number of NIH directors who are social scientists.


OA B


My question is regarding the logical relationship between the following 2 statements:

Suppose X stands for the underrepresentation of social scientists
Suppose Y stands for relative lack of NIH financial support for research in the social sciences

The questions states that X causes Y, X -> Y
As per causality rules the only thing must be true is Y(not) -> X(not)

It looks like the correct answer is X(not)->Y(not), which is incorrect per causality rules.

Please advise for the correct reasoning for this question

Thanks,
Andy