If the government increases its funding for civilian scientific resear

I was confused between B & E but I went with B, but I couldn't confidently eliminate E.

Can you please help here ? egmat MartyTargetTestPrep ScottTargetTestPrep KarishmaB GMATNinja
AndrewN

If Govt funds more, private will fund less.
We should not let the funding decrease.

Conclusion: The Govt should not increase its funding.

To conclude that if we want the funding to not decrease, we should not let the Govt increase its funding, what are we assuming? We are assuming that the Govt funding will increase by less and private funding will decrease by more. Otherwise, the conclusion does not make sense. Only if the Govt funding would be increased by less than the decrease in private funding would the overall funding decrease. And then we would be able to conclude that the Govt should not decrease its funding.
Hence, (B) is a necessary missing premise. So it is the assumption.

(A) Governments should bear the majority of the financial burden of funding for civilian scientific research.

Not an assumption. In fact the author believes that privates should also fund.

(C) Private donations toward research are no longer welcomed by researchers whose work receives government funding.

What researchers welcome is irrelevant. We are just discussing what is available.

(D) Civilian scientific research cannot be conducted efficiently with more than one source of funding.

No. In fact, the argument promotes both sources.

(E) funding for civilian scientific research is currently at the highest possible level.

The argument does not assume that funding is currently at the highest level. If privates were to increase their funding, the overall funding would increase and it would be consistent with the argument. The argument only talks about Govt not increasing its funding.

Answer (B)

Hello, AbhiR3. I think the analysis that Karishma supplied earlier is spot on. I will only add that when you see extreme language—e.g., always, never, cannot, must, or, here, highest possible—you have to ask yourself whether that extreme is justified based on the information in the passage. Most superlatives, comparative words that end in -st, are incorrect because they overstate the case, and that is just what we see in answer choice (E). Note that I am not urging you to go into autopilot whenever you see a superlative: sometimes such language is warranted, and the answer will be correct. Rather, I am cautioning you not to take an otherwise reasonable idea and, as GMAT Ninja might say, "take it for a run." Read closely, and stick to what the passage tells you.

Thank you for thinking to ask me about the question. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

If the government increases its funding for civilian scientific research, private patrons and industries will believe that such research has become primarily the government’s responsibility. When they believe that research is no longer primarily their responsibility, private patrons and industries will decrease their contributions toward research.

KarishmaB Vinit800HBS while I was reading the argument I believe I found a gap between the two groups - government and private patrons - w.r.t the term "primarily responsibility"

Reading the italics and bold part of the argument can we say that the argument is assuming that scientific research CANNOT be the primarily responsibility of both the government and private patrons and industries?

"Primarily" means "mostly". Something can be the responsibility of 2 or more groups primarily if there are many other groups too. For example inculcating good habits in a child is primarily the responsibility of his teachers and parents (not, say friends and neighbours).

But here it is said that private patrons will assume that it is primarily the responsibility of the Govt now. The argument is not assuming this. We are given that the private patrons will assume that it is the Govt's responsibility. Besides they kind of cover the entire spectrum between them - patrons would be either Govt or private.