Why is Choice B correct... Is it not a mistaken reversal..?
Please answer..
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Social scientist..
This topic has expert replies
-
prachich1987
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:47 am
- Thanked: 20 times
- Followed by:10 members
- GMAT Score:700
Why do you think its a mistaken reversal.Onell wrote:Why is Choice B correct... Is it not a mistaken reversal..?
Please answer..
It follows logically the stimulus & it is the only choice,which I think is correct.
oh sorry i mean to say mistaken negationprachich1987 wrote:Why do you think its a mistaken reversal.Onell wrote:Why is Choice B correct... Is it not a mistaken reversal..?
Please answer..
It follows logically the stimulus & it is the only choice,which I think is correct.
IF A THEN B
if underreprenentation of social scientists then relative lack of NIH financial support
negation IF not a than not b
if (not) underreprenentation of social scientists then (not) relative lack of NIH financial support
Am i missing sth...
(not) underreprenentation of social scientists==> significant reprensentation of social scientist
(not) relative lack of NIH financial support==> increase in funding
regards
-
stormier
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 4:45 pm
- Location: Boston
- Thanked: 20 times
- Followed by:1 members
- GMAT Score:720
Onell wrote:oh sorry i mean to say mistaken negationprachich1987 wrote:Why do you think its a mistaken reversal.Onell wrote:Why is Choice B correct... Is it not a mistaken reversal..?
Please answer..
It follows logically the stimulus & it is the only choice,which I think is correct.
IF A THEN B
if underreprenentation of social scientists then relative lack of NIH financial support
negation IF not a than not b
if (not) underreprenentation of social scientists then (not) relative lack of NIH financial support
Am i missing sth...
(not) underreprenentation of social scientists==> significant reprensentation of social scientist
(not) relative lack of NIH financial support==> increase in funding
regards
Onell -
I think you are right.
The correct contrapositive would be --> An increase in funding implies that there must have been an increase in representation.
An increase in representation must cause an increase in funding - is not surely true , but could be true.
Answer choice B could be true, but not necessarily true based on the stimulus. However, the other choices are worse.
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
I received a PM asking me to comment.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. Outside the scope. The argument does not discuss the size of the 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. Correct. The argument states that the underrepresentation of social scientists leads to a lack of financial support for research in the social sciences, suggesting that an increase in the number of social scientists would lead to greater financial support.
(C) A significant increase in funding for social science research would result in improved policy recommendations to NIH directors. Outside the scope. The argument is not about policy recommendations.
(D) A significant increase in funding for the training of social scientists would result in an increase in the number of social scientists on NIH advisory councils. Outside the scope. The argument is not about about funding for the training of social scientists but about funding for research in the social sciences.
The contrapositive of the statement "If there is underrepresentation, then there will be a lack of financial support" is "If there is sufficient financial support, then there was sufficient representation". Answer choice D states that there would be an increase in the number of social scientists. Please note the difference in tenses: the contrapositive tells us what must have been true in the past, not what would be true in the future.
Regardless, I've never seen a GMAT argument that relied on knowledge of the contrapositive.
(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. Outside the scope. The argument is not about NIH directors.
The correct answer is B.
Hope this helps!
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Thanks GmatguruNy,However my question is why is choice B correct? Choice B is mistaken Negation..GMATGuruNY wrote:I received a PM asking me to comment.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. Outside the scope. The argument does not discuss the size of the 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. Correct. The argument states that the underrepresentation of social scientists leads to a lack of financial support for research in the social sciences, suggesting that an increase in the number of social scientists would lead to greater financial support.
(C) A significant increase in funding for social science research would result in improved policy recommendations to NIH directors. Outside the scope. The argument is not about policy recommendations.
(D) A significant increase in funding for the training of social scientists would result in an increase in the number of social scientists on NIH advisory councils. Outside the scope. The argument is not about about funding for the training of social scientists but about funding for research in the social sciences.
The contrapositive of the statement "If there is underrepresentation, then there will be a lack of financial support" is "If there is sufficient financial support, then there was sufficient representation". Answer choice D states that there would be an increase in the number of social scientists. Please note the difference in tenses: the contrapositive tells us what must have been true in the past, not what would be true in the future.
Regardless, I've never seen a GMAT argument that relied on knowledge of the contrapositive.
(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. Outside the scope. The argument is not about NIH directors.
The correct answer is B.
Hope this helps!
if (not) underreprenentation of social scientists then (not) relative lack of NIH financial support
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
The inverse of If X, then Y is If not X, then not Y. You are correct that the inverse of a statement is not necessarily true.Onell wrote:Thanks GmatguruNy,However my question is why is choice B correct? Choice B is mistaken Negation..GMATGuruNY wrote:I received a PM asking me to comment.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. Outside the scope. The argument does not discuss the size of the 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. Correct. The argument states that the underrepresentation of social scientists leads to a lack of financial support for research in the social sciences, suggesting that an increase in the number of social scientists would lead to greater financial support.
(C) A significant increase in funding for social science research would result in improved policy recommendations to NIH directors. Outside the scope. The argument is not about policy recommendations.
(D) A significant increase in funding for the training of social scientists would result in an increase in the number of social scientists on NIH advisory councils. Outside the scope. The argument is not about about funding for the training of social scientists but about funding for research in the social sciences.
The contrapositive of the statement "If there is underrepresentation, then there will be a lack of financial support" is "If there is sufficient financial support, then there was sufficient representation". Answer choice D states that there would be an increase in the number of social scientists. Please note the difference in tenses: the contrapositive tells us what must have been true in the past, not what would be true in the future.
Regardless, I've never seen a GMAT argument that relied on knowledge of the contrapositive.
(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. Outside the scope. The argument is not about NIH directors.
The correct answer is B.
Hope this helps!
if (not)underreprenentation of social scientists then (not)relative lack of NIH financial support
For example, the following statement is true:
If I am in New York City, then I am in the United States.
Here is the inverse:
If I am not in New York City, then I am not in the United States.
The statement above is not necessarily true.
But answer choice B does not offer such an inverse: it does not state as fact that an increase in representation will result in an increase in funding. Answer choice B offers only a hypothetical prediction: that an increase in funding likely would result in an increase in funding. This hypothetical prediction is supported by the passage.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Thanks gmatguruny , I got it nowGMATGuruNY wrote:The inverse of If X, then Y is If not X, then not Y. You are correct that the inverse of a statement is not necessarily true.Onell wrote:Thanks GmatguruNy,However my question is why is choice B correct? Choice B is mistaken Negation..GMATGuruNY wrote:I received a PM asking me to comment.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. Outside the scope. The argument does not discuss the size of the 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. Correct. The argument states that the underrepresentation of social scientists leads to a lack of financial support for research in the social sciences, suggesting that an increase in the number of social scientists would lead to greater financial support.
(C) A significant increase in funding for social science research would result in improved policy recommendations to NIH directors. Outside the scope. The argument is not about policy recommendations.
(D) A significant increase in funding for the training of social scientists would result in an increase in the number of social scientists on NIH advisory councils. Outside the scope. The argument is not about about funding for the training of social scientists but about funding for research in the social sciences.
The contrapositive of the statement "If there is underrepresentation, then there will be a lack of financial support" is "If there is sufficient financial support, then there was sufficient representation". Answer choice D states that there would be an increase in the number of social scientists. Please note the difference in tenses: the contrapositive tells us what must have been true in the past, not what would be true in the future.
Regardless, I've never seen a GMAT argument that relied on knowledge of the contrapositive.
(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. Outside the scope. The argument is not about NIH directors.
The correct answer is B.
Hope this helps!
if (not)underreprenentation of social scientists then (not)relative lack of NIH financial support
For example, the following statement is true:
If I am in New York City, then I am in the United States.
Here is the inverse:
If I am not in New York City, then I am not in the United States.
The statement above is not necessarily true.
But answer choice B does not offer such an inverse: it does not state as fact that an increase in representation will result in an increase in funding. Answer choice B offers only a hypothetical prediction: that an increase in funding likely would result in an increase in funding. This hypothetical prediction is supported by the passage.
I dont agree with the explaination provided because as I see it B is the inverse of what is said in the prompt
because the representation of the social scientist is limited than less funding for social science
because X than Y
now B states that
if reprsenation is increased than the funding would ibccrease
which isthe same as saying
if not (less representation) than not(less funding)
GMATGURUNY could you please explain where I am wrong in my understanding
because the representation of the social scientist is limited than less funding for social science
because X than Y
now B states that
if reprsenation is increased than the funding would ibccrease
which isthe same as saying
if not (less representation) than not(less funding)
GMATGURUNY could you please explain where I am wrong in my understanding
-
nileshdalvi
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:59 am
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
I cannot understand the discussion where the causal relationship is tagged with conditional. The argument clearly says, Because of less representation, the funds are less". So, the answer choice says that had the representation been more, funds would have been more. Why insert a conditional and contrapositive here and get confused.
