Arts advocate: Few universities require that students who are speciali

The argument is that creativity is required for progress in science/tech and that art courses promote this creativity. Since this logic is straightforward, we can infer a likely answer (the Precise approach): we want something which shows that the art courses do in fact increase creativity and/or that this creativity does in fact lead to progress.

Skimming over our options, (B) is the only option which directly addresses the issue and is our answer.

Arts advocate: Few universities require that students who are specializing in science and technology take many art courses. However, real progress in science and technology requires an element of creativity, which the arts foster. Thus, to help science and technology students succeed in their careers, universities should increase the number of art courses required for them.

Type- strengthen
Conclusion- to help science and technology students succeed in their careers, universities should increase the number of art courses required for them.

A. Universities required more art courses for science and technology students in the past.- irrelevant, the relative comparison between the number of art courses in present and past is not relevant
B. Participation in art courses increases students' creative thinking in their science and technology courses.- Correct, this bridges the gap in our argument
C. More students who are interested in art would specialize in science and technology if the number of art courses required for those programs were increased.- irrelevant, the argument does not claim to increase the number of students in tech
D. Some of the most prominent scientists began their careers as artists.- irrelevant
E. Discussion of science and technology topics in art courses increases creative thinking among students in those courses.- irrelevant, we are bothered only about tech courses

Answer B

For Answer (B): Isn't it already stated clearly in the premise? "real progress in science and technology requires an element of creativity, which the arts foster"

Conclusion: universities should increase the number of art courses required for science and technology students to help them succeed in their careers.
Potential assumptions:
- Studying art somehow increases one's creative abilities
- The creative abilities that are gained via studying art transpire benefits to the type of thinking undertaken by students in science and technology courses.

Which of the following would, if true, most strengthen the argument above?

A. Universities required more art courses for science and technology students in the past.

A past requirement of the university does not serve to strengthen the argument that current students should undertake more required studies in arts.

Eliminate

B. Participation in art courses increases students' creative thinking in their science and technology courses.
Boom. This validates the assumption made in forming the argument. Correct

C. More students who are interested in art would specialize in science and technology if the number of art courses required for those programs were increased.
This presents a warped, inverse-logic type answer. The argument is not that art students will better participate in science and tech courses, but rather the argument is that science and tech students will benefit by studying art subjects.

Eliminate

D. Some of the most prominent scientists began their careers as artists.
Firstly, what is true of some may not be true of all, second, the fact that some prominent scientists began their careers as artists does not serve to strengthen an argument that science students would benefit by studying art (the opposite).

Eliminate

E. Discussion of science and technology topics in art courses increases creative thinking among students in those courses.

This answer choice approaches one of the assumptions, but it doesn't apply to the students - science and technology students - in question as there is no mention of them.

Eliminate.

GMATNinja, gmat1393, GMATNinjaTwo, nightblade354 VeritasKarishma

Hi. I understand why Option B is correct but I am unable to eliminate option E. Can you please help?

Thanks,

Arts advocate: Datapoint -- Few universities require that students who are specializing in science and technology take many art courses. Reasoning behind conclusion -- However, real progress in science and technology requires an element of creativity, which the arts foster. Conclusion -- Thus, to help science and technology students succeed in their careers, universities should increase the number of art courses required for them.

Which of the following would, if true, most strengthen the argument above?

Since it is a strengthen type question, the correct answer choice will:
1. Reinforce/ Support the conclusion.
2. Be a new information

The correct answer choice should support the fact that - yes, to help the science & technology students succeed in their careers, universities should increase the number of art courses required for them.


A. Universities required more art courses for science and technology students in the past. --> No Tie to Conclusion -- Eliminate

B. Participation in art courses increases students' creative thinking in their science and technology courses. --> Hold on as it's in line with the reasoning used to reach the conclusion in the argument.

C. More students who are interested in art would specialize in science and technology if the number of art courses required for those programs were increased. --> Reverse Logic -- Eliminate

D. Some of the most prominent scientists began their careers as artists. --> Out of Scope -- Eliminate

E. Discussion of science and technology topics in art courses increases creative thinking among students in those courses. --> Reverse Logic -- Eliminate

So, we are left with only (B) - Correct Answer

I still don’t quite understand the reason we are eliminating option E.

As per option E, discussion of science and technology topics in art courses increases creative thinking among students in those courses. What do we really mean by students in those courses ? Students in arts courses right? So students in art courses can be both students specialising in science and technology courses and students specialising in art. If by “in those courses” we mean that we are talking only about the ones who are specialising in arts, then this option becomes totally irrelevant. BUT, if we are considering the students specialising in science and technology as well, then why not this option??

VeritasKarishma please help

Regards,

Posted from my mobile device

So because as per option E, the discussion of science and technology topics in arts courses increases the creativity among the students, not the art courses themselves, this is why this option is wrong right?

Our argument says that "art courses" should be taken by Science specialisation students. Currently they are not taking art courses much.
We need to strengthen this.

(E) says discussion of science in Arts courses improves creative thinking. What makes arts courses more effective is irrelevant. We want to say that students specialising in science should take Arts courses.

Hi VeritasKarishma AndrewN

Can you please let me know your thoughts on this question?

I feel that option B is already implied in the passage.
The following statement from the passage and Option B both say the same things.

However, real progress in science and technology requires an element of creativity, which the arts foster.

I have learned to not select the option in a strengthen question that restates the information already given in the passage.

Thanks in advance.

Hello, abhola. I have no problem whatsoever with the question. Regarding your last statement about selecting an answer choice "that restates the information already given in the passage," that is nothing more than superstition. In fact, I would say that many correct answers do the best job mimicking the language or information the passage presents. Is choice (B) a restatement of the line in question, though? No. The frame of the question stem and that of the line in question are different. Notice that the passage presents the line as an opinion. We can tell this from the word however, as well as the judgmental real and requires. Who thinks these thoughts? The arts advocate. They are not presented as facts in the passage. But the question stem specifies if true—if (B) were true, then it would substantiate the view of the arts advocate... or, in other words, strengthen it. Keep in mind, too, that the argument is not the second line, but the last one, the one that starts with thus. The arts advocate calls for schools to increase the number of art courses required for [science and technology students]. Choice (B), if true, provides just the type of reason we are seeking to validate that view.

Watch the language used in the passage and answer choices to keep from passing quick judgment. If you rely on precedent rather than on critical reasoning to tackle CR questions, especially more difficult questions, you will find yourself coming up empty-handed more often than you would care to, and the CR task will prove quite frustrating.

I hope my thoughts help clarify your concerns. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

There is a difference in what is given and what the correct option gives.

We are given that arts foster creativity. Students are forced to get creative in arts courses. But do they then apply this creativity in science and tech courses too? We are not given in the argument.
Option (B) states that they do. They do apply this creativity to science courses too. This does help strengthen our argument.

­Hi GMATNinja

Can you please explain what is wrong with option D?
If some of the most prominent scientists began their careers as artists, they also studied arts and had good creative thinking, which they applied in their careers and ultimately became great scientists. This only increases our confidence that arts as a subject should be increased for science and technology students to succeed in their careers. Am I missing any other thinking or angle here?­

­There are a couple of issues with (D). First, we're looking to strengthen the argument that the number of required art courses should be increased -- and we can't assume that these artists-turned-scientists took any such courses. Perhaps they were self-taught, or perhaps they only took formal classes through high school. We just can't say that their creativity was fostered by university arts courses.

Second, the word "some" should stand out. "Some" could mean a whole bunch, or it could mean a tiny handful. If only a few scientists started out as artists, that really doesn't provide much support for requiring more arts courses.

­(B) does a much better job of strengthening the argument by directly linking participation in arts course to creativity in science and technology courses. For that reason, we can confidently say that (B) "most strengthens" the argument. ­

I hope that helps!­