Onell wrote:Why is Choice B correct... Is it not a mistaken reversal..?


Please answer..

prachich1987 wrote:

Onell wrote:Why is Choice B correct... Is it not a mistaken reversal..?


Please answer..

Why do you think its a mistaken reversal.
It follows logically the stimulus & it is the only choice,which I think is correct.

Onell wrote:

prachich1987 wrote:

Onell wrote:Why is Choice B correct... Is it not a mistaken reversal..?


Please answer..

Why do you think its a mistaken reversal.
It follows logically the stimulus & it is the only choice,which I think is correct.

oh sorry i mean to say mistaken negation
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

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?

GMATGuruNY wrote:

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?

I received a PM asking me to comment.

(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!

Onell wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

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?

I received a PM asking me to comment.

(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!

Thanks GmatguruNy,However my question is why is choice B correct? Choice B is mistaken Negation..
if (not)underreprenentation of social scientists then (not)relative lack of NIH financial support

GMATGuruNY wrote:

Onell wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

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?

I received a PM asking me to comment.

(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!

Thanks GmatguruNy,However my question is why is choice B correct? Choice B is mistaken Negation..
if (not)underreprenentation of social scientists then (not)relative lack of NIH financial support

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.

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.