Teacher: Among thirty nations with comparable levels of economic

Let's evaluate each option:

A. This option states a premise or a fact that the teacher uses in their argument, but it doesn't state the main point or conclusion the teacher is trying to make.

B. This option describes one of the premises the teacher gives, but it doesn't focus on the connection the teacher makes between the lack of teachers with science degrees and the low proportion of students getting science degrees.

C. This option also states a premise used by the teacher to support their main point, but it isn't the main point itself.

D. This option clearly restates the conclusion of the teacher's argument: that the reason Nation X has a low proportion of students getting science degrees is because of the lack of secondary-school science teachers with science degrees.

E. This option introduces a new idea that isn't present in the original argument. The teacher doesn't make an argument about students becoming science teachers.

So, the conclusion of the teacher's argument is best restated by option D.

The question aims to identify the statement that most accurately summarizes the primary argument MAIN IDEA made by the teacher, considering the information provided.

Option D explicitly outlines this cause-and-effect relationship, specifically addressing the link between the lack of science degrees among secondary-school science teachers in Nation X and the subsequent low proportion of college students obtaining science degrees. In contrast, the remaining options do not explicitly address this cause-and-effect relationship highlighted in the teacher’s argument.

My main question to any of the GMATClub experts MartyMurray gmatophobia GMATNinja : How did we determine that the reason or explanation for why nation X was ranked relatively low is the MAIN IDEA, and that the last sentence "An inspired and knowledgeable science teacher can excite students about science, thus encouraging them to get a degree in science." is the premise, not the conclusion? Thanks in advance for your help!!

Also hi, gmatophobia , thanks for sharing your thought process of elimination. I would love more clarification on how you picked between C and D...

You used the since... therefore reasoning to rule out C versus D but why does sentence 1 make sense while sentence 2 doesn't? To me, sentence 1 reads as if we are assuming that ONLY science teachers with science degrees can be inspired and knowledgeable. Sentence 2 seems to make sense as the teacher's argument is that while Nation X is ranked 28th out of 30 nations, the secondary school science teachers who are inspired and knowledgeable can encourage students to get a science college degree. Don't you think so?­


Update: After further thought, I understand why C is not as accurate as D. 
C states that "inspired and knowledgeable SECONDARY science teachers can encourage their students to get a degree in science in college." But the passage just mentions that inspired and knowledgeable science teachers can encourage their students, not necessarily secondary science teachers only. Meanwhile D demonstrates the correct cause and effect relationship in the earlier part of the argument. So D is a more accurate statement than C is. 

­I misread the question stem and thus had a lot of difficulty selecting the correct option. 

The question stem says: Which of the following most accurately RESTATES the conclusion of the teacher's argument? 

I am seeing this type of question for the FIRST TIME. Thus, when I read the question stem, I read it as:

Which of the following most accurately states the conclusion of the teacher's argument?

So, I was looking for something that could be concluded based on the teacher's argument. I was NOT looking for something that had ALREADY BEEN concluded in the argument.

However, the question stem uses the word "restates" - this means that the conclusion has already been stated in the argument; we're looking for its restatement in the options.

Important to note that we're not looking for a restatement of anything other than the conclusion. We're looking for a restatement of the conclusion.

So, first, we need to find what the conclusion of the argument is.

Among thirty nations with comparable levels of economic development, Nation X ranks twenty-eighth in the proportion of college students who get a degree in science. - This statement is a fact and thus cannot be the conclusion.

Undoubtedly the reason is that most of the nation's secondary-school science teachers do not have a science degree - This statement presents a cause of the first statement. Causalities are usually opinions. Thus, this qualifies for being a conclusion.

An inspired and knowledgeable science teacher can excite students about science, thus encouraging them to get a degree in science. - This statement supports the causality that a lack of qualified teachers can be the reason for a low proportion of students getting science degrees. Thus, this statement is NOT a conclusion; it is a support for the conclusion stated in the second statement.

So, the conclusion is:

Among thirty nations with comparable levels of economic development, Nation X ranks twenty-eighth in the proportion of college students who get a degree in science BECAUSE most of the nation's secondary-school science teachers do not have a science degree.

With this understanding, option D is CLEARLY the answer, and other options are CLEARLY incorrect.

If you are still not clear, let me know. I may not have explained it well enough.­

Some people may mistake the last sentence for the conclusion but it isn't. The sentence "Undoubtedly the reason is that most of the nation's secondary-school science teachers do not have a science degree" is the conclusion.

You're just restating the conclusion here. You need an answer choice that exactly rephrases this sentence. The only one that does that is D.

Understanding the argument - ­
Teacher: Among thirty nations with comparable levels of economic development, Nation X ranks twenty-eighth in the proportion of college students who get a degree in science. - Fact. 
Undoubtedly the reason is that most of the nation's secondary-school science teachers do not have a science degree. - Opinion. Conclusion. It establishes the cause, "teachers don't have the science degree," for the effect "Nation X ranks twenty-eighth in the proportion of college students who get a degree in science."
An inspired and knowledgeable science teacher can excite students about science, thus encouraging them to get a degree in science. - This statement supports the causal connection. How? They can't encourage them if they don't have a science degree. 

Which of the following most accurately restates the conclusion of the teacher's argument?

Option Elimination. 

A. Nation X has a lower proportion of college students who get a degree in science than do most nations with comparable levels of economic development. - Restatement of premise. Wrong. 

B. Most secondary-school science teachers in Nation X lack science degrees and have trouble exciting students about science. - It restates the fact from the argument but fails to establish the causal connection, which is the conclusion: "The REASON is that most of the nation's secondary-school science teachers do not have a science degree." 

C. Inspired and knowledgeable secondary-school science teachers can encourage their students to get a degree in science in college. - Restates the last supporting premise. Wrong. 

D. The reason that only a relatively low proportion of college students in Nation X get a degree in science is that most secondary-school science teachers there lack science degrees. - Ok. Establishes the cause-and-effect relationship. 

E. If more secondary-school students in Nation X would become more excited about science, more of them would eventually go on to become science teachers. - It further elaborates on the last supporting premise and substantiates the conclusion. Strengthener but not a conclusion. 

I had a small doubt.

­Conclusion: Among thirty nations with comparable levels of economic development, Nation X ranks twenty-eighth in the proportion of college students who get a degree in science BECAUSE most of the nation's secondary-school science teachers do not have a science degree.

Why can't we break the above statement into two, such that the part before BEFORE is the conclusion and the part after BEFORE is the premise supporting the conclusion?­

I feel both B and D are correct, however D has an issue with the *relatively low proportion*. That's not stated in the argument. The argument says it's ranked low amongst the 30 nations, but doesn't say that RELATIVELY low proportion of COLLEGE STUDENTS OF NATION X doesn't have science degree. So how to navigate this?

­GMATNinja KarishmaB

As the second sentence provides the reasoning for the first sentence, why can't we say that the second sentence is the premise and the first sentence is the conclusion?

If A implies B, shouldn't B be the conclusion?

­
We have to re-state the conclusion. What is the conclusion here - the author's opinion?

Conclusion: Undoubtedly the reason is that most of the nation's secondary-school science teachers do not have a science degree.

The author's conclusion is that the reason (for low proportion of college students pursuing science) is that most of the nation's secondary-school science teachers do not have a science degree.


A. Nation X has a lower proportion of college students who get a degree in science than do most nations with comparable levels of economic development.

This is correct as per the given premises but it is not the conclusion in the argument.

B. Most secondary-school science teachers in Nation X lack science degrees and have trouble exciting students about science.

This is also likely true as per the argument but this is not the conclusion of the argument. Note very carefully what the author says - the reason for low proportion of college students pursuing science is lack of science degrees among teachers.
His point is neither A nor B. His point is that "B is the reason for A."

C. Inspired and knowledgeable secondary-school science teachers can encourage their students to get a degree in science in college.

Again, his point is what led to a particular outcome.

D. The reason that only a relatively low proportion of college students in Nation X get a degree in science is that most secondary-school science teachers there lack science degrees.

Exactly. This is his conclusion.

E. If more secondary-school students in Nation X would become more excited about science, more of them would eventually go on to become science teachers.

Out of scope.

Answer (D)

­The reason provided is the author's opinion. It is the conclusion of his argument. His conclusion, his point is that "low proportion of science students is because of few teachers having science degrees".

In simple words, he says:
Students don't take science often. (gives context)
This is because lower grade teachers are not science experts. (Conclusion)
When teachers are science experts, they can excite the students about science. (gives support to his conclusion)

What the teacher wants to say is that the REASON that Nation X ranks twenty-eighth in the proportion of college students who get a degree in science is that most of the nation's secondary-school science teachers do not have a science degree. The information alone that most secondary-school science teachers in Nation X lack science degrees and have trouble exciting students about science, like it is stated in B is not enough as it is missing the important causality link between the conclusion and the premise. If we are dealing with stand alone conclusions, all the information is presented in it and nothing is used as a space holder. In our case THE REASON is such a space holder which refers to the previously stated premise. Through creation of the causal link, the premise becomes part of the conclusion. So in our case, we are dealing with an unstated premise in the conclusion. In these type of question, always question the motive of the speaker. His motive here is the blame game. Who is he blaming: teachers without science degrees. For what actually: For the low proportion of college students who get a degree in science. And this is our causal relationship A is missing the actual conclusion and just presents the premise that is causally linked to the conclusion. C is an inference that nobody asked for. E is the underlying assumption of the conclusion that also nobody asked for.­

Step 1: Understand the Argument
Premises:

Nation X ranks 28th out of 30 nations with comparable economic development in terms of the proportion of college students who obtain science degrees.
Most of Nation X's secondary-school science teachers do not have science degrees.
An inspired and knowledgeable science teacher can excite students about science, thereby encouraging them to pursue science degrees in college.

Conclusion: The teacher concludes that the reason for the low proportion of college students getting science degrees in Nation X is because most secondary-school science teachers lack science degrees.

Step 2: Identify the Task
The question asks for the answer choice that most accurately restates the conclusion of the teacher's argument. Your task is to find the choice that best paraphrases or captures the essence of this conclusion.

Step 3: Analyze Each Answer Choice
Let's evaluate each option in light of the conclusion.

A. Nation X has a lower proportion of college students who get a degree in science than do most nations with comparable levels of economic development.

Analysis: This restates part of the premise, not the conclusion. It mentions the fact that Nation X ranks low in the proportion of science degrees but doesn't explain why this is the case.
Conclusion: Does not restate the conclusion.
B. Most secondary-school science teachers in Nation X lack science degrees and have trouble exciting students about science.

Analysis: This option partially addresses the issue by stating that teachers lack science degrees and may have trouble exciting students. However, it doesn’t clearly connect this to the conclusion that this is the reason for the low proportion of college students obtaining science degrees.
Conclusion: Does not fully restate the conclusion.
C. Inspired and knowledgeable secondary-school science teachers can encourage their students to get a degree in science in college.

Analysis: This is another premise, not the conclusion. It merely restates the idea that inspired and knowledgeable teachers can have a positive impact on students, but it doesn’t address the issue of why Nation X has a low proportion of students getting science degrees.
Conclusion: Does not restate the conclusion.
D. The reason that only a relatively low proportion of college students in Nation X get a degree in science is that most secondary-school science teachers there lack science degrees.

Analysis: This directly captures the teacher's conclusion. It explicitly states that the reason for the low proportion of college students obtaining science degrees in Nation X is that most secondary-school science teachers lack science degrees. This is exactly what the teacher is arguing.
Conclusion: Correct answer.
E. If more secondary-school students in Nation X would become more excited about science, more of them would eventually go on to become science teachers.

Analysis: This is a hypothetical scenario and shifts the focus away from the conclusion. It speculates about future outcomes rather than restating the current conclusion about why students are not pursuing science degrees.
Conclusion: Does not restate the conclusion.
Step 4: Conclusion
The correct answer is D. The reason that only a relatively low proportion of college students in Nation X get a degree in science is that most secondary-school science teachers there lack science degrees.

Why? This choice directly captures the teacher's conclusion by linking the low proportion of science degrees among college students to the fact that most secondary-school science teachers do not have science degrees. This is the essence of the teacher's argument and is the best paraphrasing of the conclusion.

Key Takeaways for Similar Questions:
Identify the conclusion: Always pinpoint the conclusion of the argument before considering the answer choices.
Look for paraphrasing: In questions that ask you to restate a conclusion, find the choice that best paraphrases the argument's conclusion without introducing new ideas or premises.
Eliminate premises: Be careful not to confuse premises with conclusions. The conclusion should be the statement that the argument is trying to prove, based on the premises.

Hi,
KarishmaB AjiteshArun Can an explanation of a fact be conclusion? This was the only thing that held me back. I really find the Because X, Therefore Y structure easy to find conclusion and at a cursory glance it looked as if the conclusion here was providing am explanation aka being the 'because' phrase

But I think this is the right way to look at the argument

Teacher:
Context:
Among thirty nations with comparable levels of economic development, Nation X ranks twenty-eighth in the proportion of college students who get a degree in science.

Premise
Because An inspired and knowledgeable science teacher can excite students about science, thus encouraging them to get a degree in science -

Conclusion
Therefore,
Undoubtedly the reason (why Nation X ranks twenty-eighth) is that most of the nation's secondary-school science teachers do not have a science degree.