Critical Reasoning

The number of patents granted to inventors by the United States Patent Office dropped from 56,000 in 1971 to 45,000 in 1978. Spending on research and development, which peaked at 3 percent of the gross national product (GNP) in 1964, was only 2.2 percent of the GNP in
1978. During this period, when the United States percentage was steadily decreasing, West Germany and Japan increased the percentage of their GNP's spent on research and development to 3.2 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively.

Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?

(A) There is direct relationship between the size of a nation's GNP and the number of inventions it produces.
(B) Japan and West Germany spent more money on research and development is directly related to the number of inventions patented in that nation.
(C) The amount of money a nation spends on research and development is directly relocated to the number of inventions patented in that nation.
(D) Between 1964 and 1978 the United States consistently spent a larger percentage of its GNP on research and development than did Japan.
(E) Both West Germany and Japan will soon surpass the United States in the number of patents granted to investors.

Even though this question asks for a conclusion, it's more effective to approach this as though it's an inference. If there's an answer that MUST be true, based on the premises (as there is in an inference question) it will naturally be the best supported of the 5 answer choices.
Here, that choice is D. The other choices are all ideas that seem like logical outgrowths of the information presented, but they aren't incontestably true. D, on the other hand, is backed up by math: U.S. spending on R & D was between 3% and 2.2% during the relevant time period, while Japan's R & D spending during the same period was increasing to 1.6%, which means that it wasn't higher than 1.6%. 1.6 < 2.2, and therefore D is correct.

Thanks Andrea. Can you tell me why we are not suppose to think that in any of the years between 64 and 78 US GNP might have gone below that of Japan GNP?

grockit_andrea wrote:Even though this question asks for a conclusion, it's more effective to approach this as though it's an inference. If there's an answer that MUST be true, based on the premises (as there is in an inference question) it will naturally be the best supported of the 5 answer choices.
Here, that choice is D. The other choices are all ideas that seem like logical outgrowths of the information presented, but they aren't incontestably true. D, on the other hand, is backed up by math: U.S. spending on R & D was between 3% and 2.2% during the relevant time period, while Japan's R & D spending during the same period was increasing to 1.6%, which means that it wasn't higher than 1.6%. 1.6 < 2.2, and therefore D is correct.

The premise tells us in the third sentence that the U.S.'s spending on R & D was "steadily decreasing." If that percentage had gone below Japan's maximum 1.6%, it would have had to increase to get back to 2.2%, which wouldn't be consistent with a steady decrease.

grockit_andrea wrote:The premise tells us in the third sentence that the U.S.'s spending on R & D was "steadily decreasing." If that percentage had gone below Japan's maximum 1.6%, it would have had to increase to get back to 2.2%, which wouldn't be consistent with a steady decrease.

Hi Andrea, thank you for the explanation. I just came across this question in the 9th Edition and think that the stem is either wrong, or I'm not really getting it.

If the US percentage was decreasing from 3.0% (peak) in 1964 to 2.2% in 1978, how can we infer that West Germany didn't go from 3.0% to 3.2% during the same period. Because we do not know the relative rates of decrease/increase between the percentage of the US and that of West Germany, we'd have to rely on the premises in the stem but the premises do not incontestably indicate that Germany has ever been below 3.0% of its GNP.

Thank you,

Gio

giovanni.gastone wrote:

grockit_andrea wrote:The premise tells us in the third sentence that the U.S.'s spending on R & D was "steadily decreasing." If that percentage had gone below Japan's maximum 1.6%, it would have had to increase to get back to 2.2%, which wouldn't be consistent with a steady decrease.

Hi Andrea, thank you for the explanation. I just came across this question in the 9th Edition and think that the stem is either wrong, or I'm not really getting it.

If the US percentage was decreasing from 3.0% (peak) in 1964 to 2.2% in 1978, how can we infer that West Germany didn't go from 3.0% to 3.2% during the same period. Because we do not know the relative rates of decrease/increase between the percentage of the US and that of West Germany, we'd have to rely on the premises in the stem but the premises do not incontestably indicate that Germany has ever been below 3.0% of its GNP.

Thank you,

Gio

We can't infer anything about West Germany, though it may have looked like we could. The two key pieces of information are:

1) The US steadily decreased to 2.2%
2) Japan increased to 1.6%

So even though the US spending went down and the Japanese spending went up, the US still spent more, which is (D) Between 1964 and 1978 the United States consistently spent a larger percentage of its GNP on research and development than did Japan.

(note that West Germany is not mentioned in choice D).

Jim@Grockit wrote: (note that West Germany is not mentioned in choice D).

Yeah, you're totally right about West Germany! I was so stuck on the math and the comparisons that West Germany is irrelevant for the answer didn't even occur to me! Thank you, Jim.