## Social scientist..

##### This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:20 am
Thanked: 1 times

### Social scientist..

by Onell » Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:08 am
Why is Choice B correct... Is it not a mistaken reversal..?

Attachments

Legendary Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:47 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:700
by prachich1987 » Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:51 am
Onell wrote:Why is Choice B correct... Is it not a mistaken reversal..?

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

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:20 am
Thanked: 1 times
by Onell » Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:09 am
prachich1987 wrote:
Onell wrote:Why is Choice B correct... Is it not a mistaken reversal..?

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

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
by stormier » Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:47 am
Onell wrote:
prachich1987 wrote:
Onell wrote:Why is Choice B correct... Is it not a mistaken reversal..?

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

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.

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
by GMATGuruNY » Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:14 pm
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.

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.

Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:20 am
Thanked: 1 times
by Onell » Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:33 pm
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?

(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.

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

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
by GMATGuruNY » Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:09 pm
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?

(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.

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.
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.

Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:20 am
Thanked: 1 times
by Onell » Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:29 pm
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?

(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.

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.
Thanks gmatguruny , I got it now

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:27 am
by agautam » Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:40 pm
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

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:59 am
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:3 members
by nileshdalvi » Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:56 am
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.

• Page 1 of 1