CR_Weaken

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:58 pm
Followed by:1 members

CR_Weaken

by Soumita » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:10 pm
The Dean claimed that, as a result of continued cutbacks in the budget for pure science research, fewer students are choosing a career in physics, and therefore the number of postgraduate students studying physics is likely to decline.

Which of the following, if true, casts most doubt on the Dean's conclusion?

A. The number of students majoring in physics at the undergraduate level has been increasing steadily over the years, a trend that is expected to continue.
B. The number of students studying chemistry declined even before cutbacks in research funding were noted.
C. Most postgraduate students of physics move to careers in computer science and engineering.
D. The Dean's own university has recently increased the number of staff members teaching physics.
E. The budget cutbacks are less severe for the pure sciences than for applied sciences.


OA C

Please explain how OA given is correct. Please explain me in details. OA is strenghthening instead of weakening.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:58 am
Location: New York City
Thanked: 188 times
Followed by:120 members
GMAT Score:770

by Tommy Wallach » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:18 pm
Hey Soumita,

Let's start with a brief outline of the argument:

Conclusion: # of Post-grads in physics is gonna go down
Proof: Fewer students are choosing a career in physics

The assumption here is fairly straightforward. A lot of people study fields even if they don't want/expect a career in that field (the liberal arts are the best example of this, but it applies to science, too). This argument assumes that the # of physics jobs correlates with the # of physics post-grads.

A) The argument links jobs to folks doing post-grads, not jobs to undergrads or undergrads to post-grads.

B) This is irrelevant. Knowing about chemistry tells us nothing about physics.

C) CORRECT. This answer breaks the correlation between # of postgrads in physics and # of career physicists. If most postgrads in physics don't go into physics anyway, then it follows that a change in one statistic (# of career physicists) won't affect the other statistic (# of physics postgrads).

D) This is tempting, but an increase in professors does not necessitate an increase in postgrads. They could simply be improving the teacher to student ratio.

E) The severity of the cutbacks isn't important. We already know there have been cutbacks. The question is whether the assumed result of those cutbacks (fewer career physicists) necessarily affects the # of physics postgrads.

Hope that helps!

-t
Tommy Wallach, Company Expert
ManhattanGMAT

If you found this posting mega-helpful, feel free to thank and/or follow me!