Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 01:36 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 01:36
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Onell
Joined: 05 Jan 2011
Last visit: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 72
Own Kudos:
1,065
 [46]
Given Kudos: 8
Posts: 72
Kudos: 1,065
 [46]
9
Kudos
Add Kudos
37
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,844
Own Kudos:
8,945
 [6]
Given Kudos: 225
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,844
Kudos: 8,945
 [6]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
5
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
subhashghosh
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Last visit: 25 Jun 2024
Posts: 896
Own Kudos:
1,279
 [2]
Given Kudos: 43
Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Products:
Posts: 896
Kudos: 1,279
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
gtr022001
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Last visit: 20 Oct 2013
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
361
 [4]
Given Kudos: 57
Location: So. CA
Concentration: General
WE 1: 2 IT
WE 2: 4 Software Analyst
Posts: 73
Kudos: 361
 [4]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
subhashghosh is on point. don't use negation technique unless you are dealing with an assumption question type
avatar
holidevil
Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Last visit: 23 Jun 2021
Posts: 27
Own Kudos:
83
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 27
Kudos: 83
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
paidlukkha
Joined: 11 Nov 2014
Last visit: 21 Apr 2017
Posts: 250
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 17
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
WE:Project Management (Telecommunications)
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
confused between B & E
Can E be eliminated as it doesnt refer funding or any monetary gains?
User avatar
abhimahna
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Last visit: 06 Jul 2024
Posts: 3,514
Own Kudos:
5,728
 [1]
Given Kudos: 346
Status:Emory Goizueta Alum
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,514
Kudos: 5,728
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
paidlukkha
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.
User avatar
anothermillenial
Joined: 21 Jul 2018
Last visit: 14 Aug 2020
Posts: 151
Own Kudos:
455
 [3]
Given Kudos: 80
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
Posts: 151
Kudos: 455
 [3]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Social scientists are underrepresented on the advisory councils of the National Institutes of Health(NIH). Since these councils advise NIH directors and recommend policy, the underrepresentation of social scientists results in a relative lack of NIH financial support for research in the social sciences.

If the statements above are correct, they most strongly support which of the following?

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.

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

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

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

Quote:
(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.
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.

Quote:
(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.
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.
User avatar
vanam52923
Joined: 17 Jul 2017
Last visit: 12 Jun 2025
Posts: 202
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 228
Posts: 202
Kudos: 102
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Onell
Social scientists are underrepresented on the advisory councils of the National Institutes of Health(NIH). Since these councils advise NIH directors and recommend policy, the underrepresentation of social scientists results in a relative lack of NIH financial support for research in the social sciences.

If the statements above are correct, they most strongly support which of the following?


(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.

(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.

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

(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.

(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.


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 !
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,986
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,986
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
vanam52923
Onell
Social scientists are underrepresented on the advisory councils of the National Institutes of Health(NIH). Since these councils advise NIH directors and recommend policy, the underrepresentation of social scientists results in a relative lack of NIH financial support for research in the social sciences.

If the statements above are correct, they most strongly support which of the following?


(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.

(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.

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

(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.

(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.


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)
User avatar
mSKR
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 938
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,986
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,986
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mSKR
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.
User avatar
mSKR
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 938
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
mSKR
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
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,986
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mSKR
VeritasKarishma
mSKR
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.
User avatar
EatMyDosa
Joined: 06 Jan 2017
Last visit: 01 Dec 2022
Posts: 85
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 283
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GPA: 3.33
Products:
Posts: 85
Kudos: 114
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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!



mSKR
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
User avatar
rushimehta
Joined: 28 Sep 2023
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 47
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 68
Location: India
GPA: 3.78
Posts: 47
Kudos: 3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
vanam52923
Onell
Social scientists are underrepresented on the advisory councils of the National Institutes of Health(NIH). Since these councils advise NIH directors and recommend policy, the underrepresentation of social scientists results in a relative lack of NIH financial support for research in the social sciences.

If the statements above are correct, they most strongly support which of the following?


(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.

(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.

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

(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.

(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.


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 KarishmaB, MartyMurray, GMATNinja

Thank you for the answer... I would like to understand how to differentiate between a cause-effect relationship, and a conditional IF...THEN... statement... Many times, I do think of a cause-effect relationship, as a conditional IF...THEN... statement.

For e.g. - Taking this statement - "Extensive use of pesticides in farming pollutes water supplies." --> IF there is extensive use of pesticides in farming, THEN it pollutes water supplies.
The above statement, is also causal in nature I feel... and as any causal statement it can be converted to IF...THEN... statement.
Can we infer the givens statement, from the above statement - "If the use of pesticides is banned, the pollution of water supplies will stop. "... The answer, here will be NO... as there will definitely be other causes which will lead to water pollution.
But, If we use the logic of causality here (that if the author shows a causal connection, then we assume that it is the only cause for the effect to happen), then the answer will be YES.

I think, the above main statement, and the given question statement, are similar to what we have in this question.

Can you please help me in this ? and let me know where I am going wrong ?
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,986
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Yes, if then statements imply causation. If A, then B means A is a cause of B. But other causes can also lead to the effect B.

rushimehta


Hi KarishmaB, MartyMurray, GMATNinja

Thank you for the answer... I would like to understand how to differentiate between a cause-effect relationship, and a conditional IF...THEN... statement... Many times, I do think of a cause-effect relationship, as a conditional IF...THEN... statement.

For e.g. - Taking this statement - "Extensive use of pesticides in farming pollutes water supplies." --> IF there is extensive use of pesticides in farming, THEN it pollutes water supplies.
The above statement, is also causal in nature I feel... and as any causal statement it can be converted to IF...THEN... statement.
Can we infer the givens statement, from the above statement - "If the use of pesticides is banned, the pollution of water supplies will stop. "... The answer, here will be NO... as there will definitely be other causes which will lead to water pollution.
But, If we use the logic of causality here (that if the author shows a causal connection, then we assume that it is the only cause for the effect to happen), then the answer will be YES.

I think, the above main statement, and the given question statement, are similar to what we have in this question.

Can you please help me in this ? and let me know where I am going wrong ?
User avatar
rushimehta
Joined: 28 Sep 2023
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 47
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 68
Location: India
GPA: 3.78
Posts: 47
Kudos: 3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
Yes, if then statements imply causation. If A, then B means A is a cause of B. But other causes can also lead to the effect B.

rushimehta


Hi KarishmaB, MartyMurray, GMATNinja

Thank you for the answer... I would like to understand how to differentiate between a cause-effect relationship, and a conditional IF...THEN... statement... Many times, I do think of a cause-effect relationship, as a conditional IF...THEN... statement.

For e.g. - Taking this statement - "Extensive use of pesticides in farming pollutes water supplies." --> IF there is extensive use of pesticides in farming, THEN it pollutes water supplies.
The above statement, is also causal in nature I feel... and as any causal statement it can be converted to IF...THEN... statement.
Can we infer the givens statement, from the above statement - "If the use of pesticides is banned, the pollution of water supplies will stop. "... The answer, here will be NO... as there will definitely be other causes which will lead to water pollution.
But, If we use the logic of causality here (that if the author shows a causal connection, then we assume that it is the only cause for the effect to happen), then the answer will be YES.

I think, the above main statement, and the given question statement, are similar to what we have in this question.

Can you please help me in this ? and let me know where I am going wrong ?

Thank you KarishmaB !

Another follow up query - how do we differentiate between a causation V/S a proper IF...THEN... "conditional statement"... ??
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,986
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Look, everything will depend on context.

An 'if then' shows cause-effect or it could show correlation too.

If you get a good grade, I will buy you a bike. - Cause is good grade, effect is a bike
If someone has high BP, they also have cholesterol. - High BP and cholesterol happen together. BP could be the cause or cholesterol could be the cause or something else could be the cause.

Don't get stuck on terminology. Focus on the intent of what is being said.






rushimehta
KarishmaB
Yes, if then statements imply causation. If A, then B means A is a cause of B. But other causes can also lead to the effect B.

rushimehta


Hi KarishmaB, MartyMurray, GMATNinja

Thank you for the answer... I would like to understand how to differentiate between a cause-effect relationship, and a conditional IF...THEN... statement... Many times, I do think of a cause-effect relationship, as a conditional IF...THEN... statement.

For e.g. - Taking this statement - "Extensive use of pesticides in farming pollutes water supplies." --> IF there is extensive use of pesticides in farming, THEN it pollutes water supplies.
The above statement, is also causal in nature I feel... and as any causal statement it can be converted to IF...THEN... statement.
Can we infer the givens statement, from the above statement - "If the use of pesticides is banned, the pollution of water supplies will stop. "... The answer, here will be NO... as there will definitely be other causes which will lead to water pollution.
But, If we use the logic of causality here (that if the author shows a causal connection, then we assume that it is the only cause for the effect to happen), then the answer will be YES.

I think, the above main statement, and the given question statement, are similar to what we have in this question.

Can you please help me in this ? and let me know where I am going wrong ?

Thank you KarishmaB !

Another follow up query - how do we differentiate between a causation V/S a proper IF...THEN... "conditional statement"... ??
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
188 posts