Social scientists are underrepresented on the advisory councils of the

I agree that the answer choice must be B. It states the whole point most clearly.
I was curious as to how D does not contribute to the answer. It says that training of social scientists (SS) would result in an increase in their representation in the council. The argument says that under-representation results in low funding. When there is an increase in the representation at the council, it follows that funding for the research would also increase. It is a case of a sub-conclusion promoting another conclusion.
Kindly throw light on the point.

confused between B & E
Can E be eliminated as it doesnt refer funding or any monetary gains?

E is eliminated because nowhere in the passage it states that there is any direct/indirect relationship between the number of NIH directors and representation of social scientists. It simply says there is some relationship between representation of social scientists and the funding. Hence, answer is B.

This is an inference/conclusion question, and the right answer is B. With such questions, the key trap that the GMAT tries to introduce is the confusion between something that "can be true" and something that "must be true". When you want to verify the correctness of an answer therefore, the best way to do so is to try to falsify it. If the answer "can be false", then its wrong to say that it "must be true" and is also wrong for the question.

Let's look at this for the right answer B. We know that "few social scientists in NIH ---> less funding for social science". B says that if we had a lot more social scientists, we would have more funding as well. Okay, so is it possible that we could have a lot more social scientists and NOT have the funding increased? No, since the premises already contradict that. Hence, we can confirm B is correct.

Remember that many inference/conclusion questions in some way reveal to us that the only things we know for sure tend to be similar to the premises, what we've already been told as a given.

- Matoo

This set of facts begins with the author telling us that the NIH has a lack of social scientist representation. He argues that because councils are in charge of policy, lack of representation leads to lack of monetary support.

This is a Must Be True type of question (and we can tell because we are only given fact sets). From the onset, it sounds like if the council would have more representation, there will be more support for said representative group’s research.


We are not told that the size of council would increase representation...also we're trying to connect monetary support with representation.


This is fairly well supported by the author (“underrepresentation results in lack of financial support”). Hold.


This is not given by the facts. We do not know whether increase in funding leads to improved policy. This is a wrong answer that gives us “new” information not supported by the stimulus.


This is out of scope. It discusses “training of social scientists” as a method for increasing their representation on the NIH advisory councils. the main point of the facts is about financial support and representation.


Sure, this might be true but it’s not supported by stimulus. Why does the # of social scientists represented on the council….HAVE to come before NIH directors who are social scientists? Also, our stimulus discusses financial support.

VeritasKarishma
First of all thank you so much for article on sufficient and necessary conditions.It helps a lot to answer tough qsn
I have got one cofusion here

I can write the argument as :
If underrepresentation, then less finances
so if i go for if A then B
it means if not b then not A
which is option D.

But if i go for
Only if less represenation then less fiannces
so means if not A then not B
so option B
i am not clear how it is only if condition

If representation then finances but there may be other ways to get fiances too so why to use only if in this case.
please help !

It is not a conditional statement. It is cause-effect.

Underrepresentation of social scientists causes lack of financial support for research in the social sciences.

So if representation increases, the reason for lack of financial support goes away. Hence, financial support will be expected to increase too (assuming all else stays the same).

Also note that this is the only relevant option which connects representation of social scientists (SS) with financial support for research. The correct option should not give new information.

(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.

From the argument, we don't know what we need to do to increase the representation of SS in councils.

(C) A significant increase in funding for social science research would result in improved policy recommendations to NIH directors.

Increase in funding for social research would result in better policy recommendations - from the argument, we don't know what will result in better policy recommendation.

(D) A significant increase in funding for the training of social scientists would result in an increase in the number of social scientist on NIH advisory councils.

Increase in finding for training SS will result in increase in representation of SS. From the argument, we don't know what will lead to increase in representation of SS.

(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.

Increase in representation of SS will precede increase in no of directors who are social scientists. No of directors is never discussed in the argument.

Answer (B)

Hi CrackVerbalGMAT VeritasKarishma

(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.

if B option were:
(B1) A significant increase in the representation of social scientists on NIH advisory councils would NOT result in a DECLINE in NIH funding for social science research.
or
(B2) A significant increase in the representation of social scientists on NIH advisory councils would REMAIN NORMAL(neither increase not decrease) in NIH funding for social science research.

Isn't B1 logical true(100% true) but B have gap and can not be 100% correct
. Similarly B2 has similar gap as that of B.

We choose B because other options not even close . But in fact B can not be 100% true based on information given.

please suggest CrackVerbalGMAT VeritasKarishma

I understand what you mean but note that this is an OG question so questioning its logic isn't worth it. You need to focus on the takeaway.

You are given a cause-effect statement.
Underrepresentation causes lack of funding (representation has an impact on funding). Then if representation is normalised, funding is expected to be normalised too. If the cause is removed, you would expect the effect to be removed too, all else remaining the same.
Of all the options, option (B) is most supported and that is what you need.

This I got now that it is because of cause -effect relationship. Is it because it is given in the argument directly?

I am just trying to understand in what scenarios I need to look the statement with suspicious eyes ( usually how we strengthen and weaken CRs: X happens then Y happen but Y may not happen because of X) and in what scenarios I can accept it as it( as in this argument X happens then Y happens and it is because of X- no suspicion)

Please clarify.

Thanks VeritasKarishma

It all depends on the context. How the argument and the options are framed.
If A causes B, you can expect that absence of A implies absence of B assuming all else stays the same.
If A and B co-exist, then the actual causes of B may not be known to us.

e.g.
People with illness A are depressed.

So this implies that if someone has illness A, he will be depressed. But does this mean that someone who doesn't have illness A will not be depressed? No.

mSKR:

Kindly notice the question stem:

If the statements above are correct, they most strongly support which of the following?
It is not asking you to choose an option that MUST BE TRUE .

Therefore, your reasoning w.r.t to the modified versions of option B ---> But in fact B can not be 100% true based on information given. is correct BUT not applicable given the current question stem.

Hope this helps!

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.