Scientist: Understanding public policy is as much a part of being a go

Question

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.

ChiranjeevSingh · Accepted Answer

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 assumption

The 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

Carcass · Answer

I'll go for C

The argument basically says that certain information are necessary to master some concepts to be able to make certain important chioices

C says just this

Archit143 · Answer

Another C

But I must admit question was a real brain shaker
keep osting such assumption quesion

Carcass · Answer

It was a bit tough but keep in mind always that an assumption must be true to the conclusion being correct.

In this case you can see

Jp27 · Answer

hey GMATBULL - What the answer for this one? Im torn between C and D.
I think D could also be because author concludes "science is necessary" but if the policy is re framed in other version that adults understand then scientific understanding of these concepts is not required. 
Say if we have an article in Japanese, when translated into English and when I understand English, I need not understand or learn Japanese any longer. So author must assume this cannot be possible. 
(assumption when reversed weakens the argument)

On the other hand, C looks more like a restatement of the entire argument.

If the OA is C Can some explain the flaw please.

Vips0000 · Answer

basically the passage is:
understanding policy => good citizen
problem= people dont understand policy and policy gets reframed
therfore people should get familiar with science to understand the policy

This shows that scientist believes when policy is reframed people do not get correct understanding. Otherwise why would education be necessary?
Option D states the same assumption.

ans D it is!

Vineetk · Answer

Conclusion: Understanding public policy is as much a part of being a good and effective citizen
Fact 1: Important public policy issues that are grounded in science often get reframed in for most adults have trouble grasping scientific concepts.
Fact 2: Greater familiarity with science is necessary for these adults because having it would enable them to finally understand the policies that affect their lives.

Assumption: No other means of making the understanding of adults easier is available except from familiarity with science. 
Choice D actually points to above assumption and is a correct answer.

KarishmaB · Answer

Good question - seemingly tough but pretty clear once you read through it. CJ has discussed it in detail but I would like to point out exactly why B is not a good choice.

This is what the argument says:

It is important to understand public policy. 
Important policy issues grounded in science get reframed in other terms because people don't understand science.
Greater familiarity with science is necessary to understand the policies.

Looking for an assumption now i.e. for an option which is an unsaid premise, which has been assumed by the author.

B. Not using other terms to reframe public policy issues grounded in science will improve citizens’ understanding 
of those issues.
The argument says that 'using science terms' will enhance understanding. It doesn't say that 'not using other terms will improve understanding.' 
Perhaps the best way to make people understand is to present it in science as well as other terms - we don't know. The author doesn't say or imply that not using other terms will help. He only says that using science terms will help. Hence B is incorrect.

C. To be a good and effective citizen, an adult must be able to understand basic concepts in both science and 
economics.

There is no discussion of economics. Economic terms was mentioned as an example of int he context of reframing. It is not assumed by the author that one must be able to understand basic concepts 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 assumed. He says that that policy issues are reframed but people must enhance science knowledge to truly understand the issues. Hence, he assumes that the reframed issues do not provide complete understanding.

ChiranjeevSingh · Answer

Hi Karishma,

I think I need some more clarity on this.

You said that "The argument  says  that 'using science terms' will enhance understanding. It doesn't  say  that 'not using other terms will improve understanding."

Do you mean "assume" when you say "say" as highlighted? I am asking because the argument doesn't say or not say any of these? It can assume these things.

If you mean "assume", which I think is the case, in that case do you mean that the passage doesn't assume "not using other terms will improve understanding"?
I don't think we can make such a judgment, the passage  can  assume this.

Warm Regards,
CJ

KarishmaB · Answer

When I say 'say', it means it either says directly or it is implied. It is said in the passage that adults need to understand science concepts to understand the policies i.e. they need to understand the policies in science terms. This implies that if adults understand science terms, the policies in science terms would help them understand the true meaning of the policies. 
The point here is that 'using science terms' and 'not using other terms' are two different things. The passage only says/implies that science terms will help. It doesn't imply/assume 'do not use other terms'. There is nothing mentioned in the passage against the use of other terms. The passage only harps on about why it is important to understand the policy in science terms. As far as the passage is concerned, it is certainly possible that using all different terms will be most helpful or using only science terms is good - whatever. We don't know where the author stands on 'use of other terms'. We only know his stand on 'use of science terms'.

Take another example:
Today, most schools use audio visual teaching aids instead of books right from kindergarten since children do not like reading books. Reading books is essential for children since their vocabulary and reading comprehension will improve substantially only with books.

What is this argument trying to say? 
Reading books is important. It is not saying 'dont use audio visual aids'. As far as the argument is concerned - audio visual aids could supplement books or not, whatever. The purpose of the argument is only that books are necessary.

suryanshg · Answer

D is the correct option, in my opinion.

Reason: The conclusion states that even after reframing the scientific concepts in other terms, science knowledge is required to understand the policies.
It can be assumed that the other concepts are simply not enough to have a full knowledge of reforms. Thus, science knowledge is of utmost importance in order to succeed. 
Hence, D

perfectstranger1 · Answer

Dear Karishma

I did not understand why "A" is wrong. "A" says that in order to be a good citizen one should understand public policy. There is nothing mentioned in the paragraph the relation between understanding public policy and science. It says if you understand scientific terms than you will understand public policy , thus you will be a good citizen . But how can a good citizen be ? I choose "A" because it says if you know science you ll understand public policy thus you may take different positions when compared with people who do not know science.

KarishmaB · Answer

Remember that you are looking for an assumption in this argument. The author does not assume that adults who are familiar with science take different positions on public policy issues (as you mentioned, they MAY take different positions, they may not). He just says that they understand the policies better. He assumes that reframed policies do not provide a true understanding. The entire argument deals with how well adults understand policies. It actually has nothing to do with the position they take with respect to those policies.

Aristocrat · Answer

Hey Karishma,

Can you please explain how to differentiate between inference and assumption?
Your exemplified explanation helps a lot

Regards,
Aristocrat

KarishmaB · Answer

'inference' is the same as 'the conclusion of the argument' - as far as GMAT is concerned. If you need to infer something, it means you need to find out what the author is trying to prove, the main idea behind the argument. 'What can you infer...' typically means 'what can you conclude...' in GMAT.

An assumption is a 'missing necessary premise'. It is needed to make the conclusion true. You already have the conclusion. You need to find the option which makes the conclusion stronger (in fact, it is a must for the conclusion to be true)

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Scientist: Understanding public policy is as much a part of being a go

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Scientist: Understanding public policy is as much a part of being a go

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia