gmatbull wrote:
Scientist: Understanding public policy is as much a part of being a good and effective citizen as voting is. Currently,
important public policy issues that are grounded in science often get reframed in, for example, economic terms,
for most adults have trouble grasping scientific concepts. Greater familiarity with science is necessary for these
adults because having it would enable them to finally understand the policies that affect their lives.
The scientist’s argument above makes which of the following assumptions?
A. Adults who are familiar with science take different positions on public policy issues than do adults who are not
familiar with science.
B. Not using other terms to reframe public policy issues grounded in science will improve citizens’ understanding
of those issues.
C. To be a good and effective citizen, an adult must be able to understand basic concepts in both science and
economics.
D. When public policy issues grounded in science are reframed in other terms, those reframed versions do not
provide adults with a true understanding of those issues.
E. Most adults understand economic concepts better than they do scientific concepts.
OA
Correct answer should be D. It's a close call between B and D; however, D seems the best choice. Let' see how.
Understanding public policy is as much a part of being a good and effective citizen as voting is. - It's an opinion which lays down the context for the remaining statements. It basically says that a citizen should understand public policy. (i.e. it's good for a citizen to understand public policy)
Currently, important public policy issues that are grounded in science often get reframed in, for example, economic terms, for most adults have trouble grasping scientific concepts. - Reframing this we get, " important public policy issues that are grounded in science often get reframed in economic terms because most adults have trouble grasping scientific concepts".
Greater familiarity with science is necessary for these adults because having it would enable them to finally understand the policies that affect their lives -
The statement has two parts:
1. Greater familiarity with science is necessary for these adults
2. because having it would enable them to finally understand the policies that affect their lives
First part is the
conclusion of the passage which is supported by the second part. So, it says that greater familiarity with science is necessary for adults. BUT WHY?
Because that would enable them to finally understand the policies that affect their lives.
But the previous statement said that public issues can be reframed in economic terms to help adults understand them. Then, why does the author says that "familiarity with science" is
necessary to understand the policies. Doesn't this reframing help? It seems that the author is making an assumption that reframing those policies in economic terms would not be helping the adults in understanding them; otherwise there would be no need of greater familiarity with science.
Now, let's consider the options:
A. Adults who are familiar with science take different positions on public policy issues than do adults who are not
familiar with science. -
The passage doesn't talk about positions taken by adults. It's about understanding by adults. Understanding may or may not lead to change in position.B. Not using other terms to reframe public policy issues grounded in science will improve citizens’ understanding
of those issues. -
This is very close to the assumption we figured out. This could be the answer. Let's explore other options.
C. To be a good and effective citizen, an adult must be able to understand basic concepts in both science and economics. -
Some of my fellows have selected this option. However, this is incorrect. The passage doesn't say this, doesn't assume this and also doesn't lead to this. To be good and effective citizen, one requires an understanding of public policies. Understanding of policies grounded in science may require one to understand basic principles (familiarity) of science. One can derive from this that "To be a good and effective citizen, an adult must be able to understand basic concepts in science". However, it is an inference. The statement is not an assumption built in the passage.
Even if we talk of inference, we can't infer the other part of this statement that "To be a good .... in economics"D. When public policy issues grounded in science are reframed in other terms, those reframed versions do not provide adults with a true understanding of those issues. -
This is also very close to the assumption we figured out. We'll need to reread the passage to figure out between option B and D.E. Most adults understand economic concepts better than they do scientific concepts. -
It's not assumed in the passage. It could be an inference, nto assumptionThe difference between option B and D is that B says means reframed versions reduce understanding (therefore not using them will improve understanding) while D says that reframed versions do not provide true understanding.
To decide between these, we need to read the last line of the passage "because having it would enable them to
finally understand the policies that affect their lives". It says that "finally understand", not "improve understanding".
Thus, option D is the best choice.
If anyone has any queries, please feel free to ask.
Regards,
CJ