In response to concerns that professors at many prestigious universiti

Question

The question is from Kaplan CAT, avoid if you didn't finish them all.

In response to concerns that professors at many prestigious universities spend too much time publishing and not enough time educating their students, some of these schools are propagating rules that set strict limits on the amount of material that a full-time professor may publish over a certain time period. This policy will come back to haunt these schools because, faced with the loss of any outside income, many excellent prospective candidates will opt not to accept fulltime positions, which will lead to a shortage of qualified full-time professors.

The author's conclusion logically depends on which of the following?

A  Universities generally receive a large percentage of the royalties from works published by their full-time professors.
 B  Most professors do not allow their outside work to infringe on time that should be spent on classroom preparation and teaching.
 C  Restrictions on outside publishing do not apply to part-time or adjunct professors.
 D  Publishing is the significant source of outside income for full-time professors.
 E  All professors at prestigious universities currently publish more material than is permitted under the new rules.

The reason I decided to post this is because:
 OA is D, but "SIGNIFICANT" in D and "ANY" in question stem do not match. Even if publishing is not significant source of outside income, professors will still opt not to accept fulltime positions because the loss of ANY outside income will affect them, even if it was insignificant in the first place. Please advise

vishwaprakash · Answer

Publication -> Less time for teaching
Hence restrict number of publication, 
Restriction -> Les income -> less professor

Possible assumption (Pre thinking)
1. Publication has major share in so called outside income.

A Universities generally receive a large percentage of the royalties from works published by their full-time professors.
Analysis : It talks about universities earning, not professor. It does not matter to professor how much uni earns, Hence Out of scope.

B Most professors do not allow their outside work to infringe on time that should be spent on classroom preparation and teaching.
Analysis : This does not seems to support argument at all. Basis of argument is, Outside work results into less time. This talks entirely opposite.
Wrong option

C Restrictions on outside publishing do not apply to part-time or adjunct professors.
Analysis : It talks about partimers not full time professor. Argument is mainly concerned about full time positions. Can be marked out of scope.

D Publishing is the significant source of outside income for full-time professors.
Analysis : Matches Pre thought assumption : Let's negate, "Publishing is not the significant" Hence restriction won't be big demotivating factor for full time position. Breaks the argument.

E All professors at prestigious universities currently publish more material than is permitted under the new rules.
Analysis : Fact, nice to know. It may happen that not all professor publish more than permitted but 99% publish more than permitted. So negation does not break my argument. Hence cannot be correct.

Answer : Option D

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

professors at many prestigious universities spend too much time publishing and not enough time educating their students

Assumption1 of school: If the professors are told to reduce the amount of publishing material, then they will spend enough time for student education.
Assumption2 of school: The professors may not go against the schools.

Therefore for action, some schools are propagating rules to set strict limits on the amount of material that a full-time professor may publish over a certain time period.

But this policy will harm these schools because,

professors will lose the outside income and refuse to accept full-time positions.

(The Income is so high that they reject their full time jobs. Otherwise it wont make sense.)

This action will lead to a shortage of qualified full-time professors as university will lose good professors.

The author's conclusion logically depends on which of the following?

A

Even whether universities will or will not receive, they can still imply the restriction for the sake of reputation of school and professors may or may not quit. This gives no info that can be assumed.)

B

This is opposite of conclusion.

C

(Out of scope. I selected this answer both the times I have gone through it. But now I realize that professors refuse to accept full-time positions and Nowhere he says that if they don't accept full time then they will accept part time jobs.)

D

(This is inline with our reasoning above and is the reason professors are ready to even leave the jobs for publishing their work.)

E

This can be true and close to the argument but ALL ruins it. What if few members don't, then also on average the scenario may not affect. Negation of this statement is not going to break the argument.)

Now coming to you, vishwaprakash

Quote:

The reason I decided to post this is because:
OA is D, but "SIGNIFICANT" in D and "ANY" in question stem do not match. Even if publishing is not significant source of outside income, professors will still opt not to accept full-time positions because the loss of ANY outside income will affect them, even if it was insignificant in the first place. Please advise.

Yes, you are right. But if the any income is not big enough, will they lose their jobs of prestigious school salaries. If they are not bothered about money and focused on their research and publishing , then that will weaken the conclusion.
I hope this helps

alphaseeker · Answer

kvazar

I agree on your concerns. We have to bring additional assumptions to create the primary one. 
In the argument, the author does not even mention anything in regards to income, economic concerns etc.

Correct me pls, if I am wrong.

nightblade354 · Answer

Another truly awful question by Kaplan. To the person who posted this question, you are 100% correct that the question is faulty because of the phrase 'any loss of income'. D does not have our conclusion fall apart, for even the loss of a $1 would force the Professor to quit. We are talking about 'outside' income, and we do not care about the Professor's salary, which is out of scope for this question.

To everyone who thinks D is not correct, you have my support that it is, indeed, not a viable answer for an assumption question.

To everyone who thinks D is not correct, you have my support that it is, indeed, not a viable answer for an assumption question.

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

I was stuck between C and D but finally picked C, cuz I think the excellent prospective candidates who refuse to be full-time professors will accept to be part-time professors. And now I realize this is a wrong assumption and C should be out of scope.

In response to concerns that professors at many prestigious universiti

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

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In response to concerns that professors at many prestigious universiti

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

My Rewards