The Dean claimed that, as a result of continued cutbacks in

C is strengthening! Someone kindly provide a better explanation.

C is not strengthening.
Basically the conclusion is just " the number of postgraduate students studying physics is likely to decline."
reason given for this is: "as a result of continued cutbacks in the budget for pure science research, fewer students are choosing a career in physics"

However, option C shows us that most of the physics post grads have no interest in careers in physics and they opt for computer sceince etc related careers. Thus even if the pure science research budget is cutback it is unlikely that number of students would decline.

Infact, a question, with a very similar logic, has been explained in Kaplan's breaking 700 video posted on forum as part of 1M post celebration.
breaking-700-what-it-takes-kaplan-lecture-142370.html
Check it out, I think its worth.

the answer is C because if the number of prostgraduate that move to computer science and engineering is increasing the number of postgraduates will increase or at least remain. It means that computer science and engineering are careers that appeal students after graduating from physics so the number of students will remain or increase and it weakens the conclusion

I went about doing this question like this -

Premise - There are cutbacks in research in Pure Sciences
Premise - Fewer students are choosing careers in Pure science

Conclusion - Fewer students would choose to study Physics in their postgrad.

Now for something to cast a doubt on the conclusion it has to undermine one of the premises leading to the 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.
Here it does mention that the number of students are increasing in undergraduate, it doesnt necessarily imply an increasing trend for post graduates! Irrelevant

B. The number of students studying chemistry declined even before cutbacks in research funding were noted.
Number of students in chemistry may not have any impact on those in Physics. Irrelevant.

C. Most postgraduate students of physics move to careers in computer science and engineering.
Yes!! Now we are talking. If the students dont really care about career in pure sciences, nothing would impact their pursuing Physics in postgraduation.

D. The Dean’s own university has recently increased the number of staff members teaching physics.
Increase in staff?? Whatever!

E. The budget cutbacks are less severe for the pure sciences than for applied sciences.
So what??

I have my answer C!!

This question is actually very tricky. I got the question wrong because I did not pay close attention to the wording of the correct answer choice. If you do not read it properly, C might seem completely irrelevant.

C might seem that students, after obtaining degree in postgraduate physics, student move on the other careers. Actually, C tells that DURING the postgraduate studies, physics students go an do something else (switch careers).

Thus, correct answer is C

I think here, one has to not think in terms of real world logic but GMAT logic. In real world, if after doing a post graduation in physics i would have to change field to computer science, i would rather not graduate in physics but directly go for a degree in computers. Using that logic i ended up choosing A ,but if one were to use the info only in the qn , one wld choose C.

the argument says that most post graduate students move to engineering or computer science so that it means those careers attract students that are postgraduated in physics so that maybe to study physics is a requirement to continue studying more in the future about science computer or engineering. This way, It shows that the number of students will remain and the conclusion is weaken

C- is the best answer.

You have to realise that option C is attacking the root of the argument (premise) ant not the head (conclusion) as is usually the case with most weaken question.

Either way, the argument that budget cuts in pure sciences is causing fewer students choose a career in physics is weaken. This is done by C - by showing that another factor (choosing computer science) is causing the said career pattern and not as claimed by the argument.

its C.c says that students choose career in physics(budget not responsible),afterwards they drop out.

C says that when it comes to career, PG student of physics work in eng and computer science. it is saying nothing about fewer students are choosing a career in physics or not.

Took a long time but got it .....C it is , use causal reasoning for alternate cause.

Is this question attacking premise?

Can someone advise pls!

Hello, smartguy595

Yes, answer C weaken the premise.
(IMHO this is not a conclusion but weaken type of question)

Conclusion: "the number of postgraduate students studying physics is likely to decline" -> because ->
Premise: "fewer students are choosing a career in physics, as a result of continued cutbacks in the budget for pure science research"

in other words:
The number of physics students will be lessen because students don't want to make physics career.

This is not true because "most students choose career in computer science"
so students already didn't choose the career in physics
so cutting of science physics budget has no big influence on the number of physics students.

Hi Harley1980,

But we need to accept premises as true and need to attack the conclusion right?

We can attack premises in weaken questions.

We have premise that starts from words "The Dean claimed that"
So this is the opinion of the Dean and we can weaken it.

Dean thinks that students do not choose physic's career because of poor physic's budget and we have information that students just want to go to computer area.


Here is the good article from Magoosh, exactly about this type of weaken questions in which we can attack premise:

https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/how-to-wea ... reasoning/

"Other ways of attacking an argument include:
a) questioning the evidence cited, and/or questioning the starting point"

This question asked us to make the Deans claim(premise-fewer students are choosing a career in physics) less likely to happen( Conclusion-the number of postgraduate students studying physics is likely to decline.)

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. .........>outside the scope of the argument
B. The number of students studying chemistry declined even before cutbacks in research funding were noted. ......>Irrelevant to this argument,this information may have not effect to the argument.
C. Most postgraduate students of physics move to careers in computer science and engineering. .........>Correct.This statement showed that despite fewer students are choosing a career in physics,their employ-ability didn't reduce as Most of them move to careers in computer science and engineering(weakened the dean's claim)
D. The Dean’s own university has recently increased the number of staff members teaching physics. .........>Irrelevant information.This information has no effect on the argument presented above.
E. The budget cutbacks are less severe for the pure sciences than for applied sciences. ..........>outside the scope of the argument

Hi Harley1980

Thank you very much for sharing above article.

It cleared few of my doubts.