BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

CR - Inference

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
Thanked: 165 times
Followed by:70 members

CR - Inference

by karthikpandian19 » Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:38 am
A certain state university has put severe limits on the number of research studies that can be conducted on human subjects by the psychology department in any given semester. These restrictions have led a number of the university's most prominent psychologists working in fields in which research with human subjects is essential to sign long-term contracts with other universities in order to continue their work unobstructed. In response, the state university has recently announced that they are considering lifting their restrictions.

If the statements above are true, which of the following can be properly inferred on the basis of them?


(A) The state university is changing its policy in part because it has been beginning to lose its prestige as a cutting-edge psychological research center.

(B) Some psychologists will attempt to break their contracts with other universities in order to return to the state university if the restrictions are lifted.

(C) Other universities currently have fewer restrictions than does the state university regarding the number of allowable psychological studies with human subjects.

(D) Throughout the country, psychologists are unable to perform the research they wish to perform without the funding and support from universities.

(E) The restrictions were put in place because of concerns about the treatment of human subjects which have now been proven to be false.
Regards,
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON

---If you find my post useful, click "Thank" :) :)---
---Never stop until cracking GMAT---
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 7:08 am
Thanked: 322 times
Followed by:143 members

by Kasia@EconomistGMAT » Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:57 am
A - we don't know that, we only know they have been losing specialists conducting long-term studies on human subjects
B - again we can't be sure about that
C - correct, we can make such an inference since the reason for the specialists' departure were specifically the aforementioned restrictions
D - out of scope
E - out of scope, this is not the subject of the argument
Kasia
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT - the #1 rated GMAT course

"¢ If you found my post helpful, please click the "thank" button and/or follow me.

"¢ Take a 7 day free trial and find out why Economist GMAT is the highest rated GMAT course - https://gmat.economist.com/

"¢ Read GMAT Economist reviews - https://reviews.beatthegmat.com/economis ... mat-course
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:50 am
Thanked: 214 times
Followed by:19 members
GMAT Score:740

by Birottam Dutta » Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 am
A certain state university has put severe limits on the number of research studies that can be conducted on human subjects by the psychology department in any given semester. These restrictions have led a number of the university's most prominent psychologists working in fields in which research with human subjects is essential to sign long-term contracts with other universities in order to continue their work unobstructed. In response, the state university has recently announced that they are considering lifting their restrictions.

If the statements above are true, which of the following can be properly inferred on the basis of them?


(A) The state university is changing its policy in part because it has been beginning to lose its prestige as a cutting-edge psychological research center. --- This is not discussed and any inference needs to be within the scope of this argument.

(B) Some psychologists will attempt to break their contracts with other universities in order to return to the state university if the restrictions are lifted. --- Again, we cannot infer this as breaking of contracts is never discussed within this argument.

(C) Other universities currently have fewer restrictions than does the state university regarding the number of allowable psychological studies with human subjects. --- Yes we can infer this because if profs of this university are going to other universities because of restrictions in their original university, then we can definitely infer that the other universities have fewer restrictions.

(D) Throughout the country, psychologists are unable to perform the research they wish to perform without the funding and support from universities. -- Out of context

(E) The restrictions were put in place because of concerns about the treatment of human subjects which have now been proven to be false.--- Out of context
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
Thanked: 165 times
Followed by:70 members

by karthikpandian19 » Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:34 pm
OA is C

OE is

The question asks for a claim that can be properly inferred based on the statements in the argument, which examines the consequences of new restrictions on psychological research at a state university.

Choice C is correct. This choice states that at least some other universities have fewer restrictions on research on human subjects. If restrictions on research have led psychologists to leave their universities for other universities in order to continue their work unobstructed, it stands to reason that these other universities must have less stringent restrictions. That is the only way that psychologists who once performed more human experiments than are currently allowed at the state university could continue to perform that same number.

Choice A states that the university has lost prestige due to these restrictions, which is why it is considering dropping them. This is certainly possible, especially given the fact that the psychologists who are leaving are the most prominent; but, with no information about the university's current level of prestige or the effects of similar restrictions on universities' prestige in general, this is not quite a valid inference. There are many other reasons why the university could be considering dropping the restrictions.

Choice B states that many psychologists will attempt to break their contracts and return to the university if the restrictions are lifted. It may be valid to infer that the universities hope that this will happen, since they seem to be considering lifting the restrictions in response to so many psychologists leaving, but it is not valid to assume that it necessarily will happen.

Choice D says that throughout the country, psychologists need university funding to conduct their research. It may be valid, though a bit of a stretch, to infer that these psychologists from this state university cannot perform their research without a university's funding, since they respond to the restrictions by seeking contracts at another university rather than continuing it on their own or with private funding. It is certainly too extreme, however, to say that this is true throughout the country based on only one example.

Choice E offers a reason why the restrictions were put in place and says that these reasons were subsequently found to be false, possibly explaining why the university is now considering lifting them. We have absolutely no basis in this argument for speculating upon the reasons why these restrictions were implemented and the argument seems to imply that it is the rate at which professors are leaving the university, not anything to do with the original reasons of implementation, that is making the university consider lifting the restrictions.

Choice C is correct.
karthikpandian19 wrote:A certain state university has put severe limits on the number of research studies that can be conducted on human subjects by the psychology department in any given semester. These restrictions have led a number of the university's most prominent psychologists working in fields in which research with human subjects is essential to sign long-term contracts with other universities in order to continue their work unobstructed. In response, the state university has recently announced that they are considering lifting their restrictions.

If the statements above are true, which of the following can be properly inferred on the basis of them?


(A) The state university is changing its policy in part because it has been beginning to lose its prestige as a cutting-edge psychological research center.

(B) Some psychologists will attempt to break their contracts with other universities in order to return to the state university if the restrictions are lifted.

(C) Other universities currently have fewer restrictions than does the state university regarding the number of allowable psychological studies with human subjects.

(D) Throughout the country, psychologists are unable to perform the research they wish to perform without the funding and support from universities.

(E) The restrictions were put in place because of concerns about the treatment of human subjects which have now been proven to be false.
Regards,
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON

---If you find my post useful, click "Thank" :) :)---
---Never stop until cracking GMAT---
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1