Last visit was: 24 Apr 2026, 04:06 It is currently 24 Apr 2026, 04:06
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
akela
Joined: 30 Jan 2016
Last visit: 23 May 2023
Posts: 1,227
Own Kudos:
6,348
 [24]
Given Kudos: 128
Products:
Posts: 1,227
Kudos: 6,348
 [24]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
21
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2025
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
547
 [4]
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 547
 [4]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
anud33p
Joined: 23 Jul 2014
Last visit: 31 Jul 2023
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
75
 [4]
Given Kudos: 522
Location: India
Posts: 81
Kudos: 75
 [4]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Akash720
Joined: 17 Jan 2017
Last visit: 05 Jun 2020
Posts: 216
Own Kudos:
273
 [1]
Given Kudos: 144
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Posts: 216
Kudos: 273
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO answer is C.

Science teacher opens the statement telling us " A flourishing national scientific community is essential to a successful economy"-Conclusion

Ends the argument by saying
"Good communication between scientists and the public is necessary to spark that excitement"

So we need to find a answer which combines both of these statements as the assumption of teacher will be dependent on it and 'C' exactly does that.
Keep in mind that our end goal is to support the conclusion. All other options are traps such as A,B

Posted from my mobile device
avatar
NHUANH
Joined: 24 Aug 2013
Last visit: 08 Dec 2025
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 222
Location: Finland
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT Date: 02-03-2015
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.4
WE:Account Management (Computer Software)
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V37
Posts: 21
Kudos: 25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is a chain of logical sequence. From my perspective, to deal with these chain, we should translate and combine separate single conditions into ONE big conditional chain.
Let's translate one by one:
- Flourish is essential to success (essential = necessary indicator => which mean you can say: Flourish is necessary for a successful economy)
Success -> Flourish (1)
- Flourish requires young people excite (requires = necessary indicator)
Flourish-> Excite (2)
- Good communication is necessary to these excitement, aka young people's excitement ( another necessary indicator)
Excite ->good com (3)

Combining three conditions (1), (2), and (3), we have a big chain condition as following:
Success -> Flourish -> Excite -> Good Com

you can play with any two of these element in their contrapositive form. "
For example, from "Success -> Good Com", we can have "Not good Com -> Not Success", which is exactly what option C say :).
Or another example, "Success -> Excite", we can infer that "Not Excite -> Not success


One tip to translate these chain is that you should actively ask "What is essential? What is required?"
(necessary element)
Then put them in this sequence [If SUFFICIENT -> Then NECESSARY]
This translation requires some dedication to master. For further reference, I highly recommend that you purchase 7Sage LSAT course and a subscription of LSAT Practice Test Bundle from LSAC in case you need extra practice.

I'm not an expert and this is just my personal view. Please do your own research :)
User avatar
Crytiocanalyst
Joined: 16 Jun 2021
Last visit: 27 May 2023
Posts: 942
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 309
Posts: 942
Kudos: 214
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) If scientists communicate with the public, many young people will become excited enough about science to resolve to become professional scientists.
Communication alone is not enough effectice communication is required

(B) The extent to which a national scientific community flourishes depends principally on the number of young people who become excited enough about science to resolve to become professional scientists.
it's not principle but just one among many may be

(C) No nation can have a successful economy unless at some point scientists have communicated well with the public.
Yes definitely the answer we have looking for they have to at least communicate once

(D) It is essential to any nation 's economy that most of the young people in that nation who are excited about science become professional scientists.
They don't have to become they just have to resolve

(E) An essential component of success in any scientific endeavor is good communication between the scientists. involved in that endeavor and the public
Not between scientists but among young public and exciting them
User avatar
FaxBro
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Last visit: 10 Feb 2024
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 18
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Schools: LBS '23 (A)
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
WE:Marketing (Consulting)
Schools: LBS '23 (A)
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
Posts: 15
Kudos: 8
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP
First thing I do is read the question:

The science teacher's statements provide the most support for which one of the following?

Okay so we're going to be DRAWING AN INFERENCE from what is stated in the paragraph.

Science teacher: In any nation, a flourishing national scientific community is essential to a successful economy. For such a community to flourish requires that many young people become excited enough about science that they resolve to become professional scientists. Good communication between scientists and the public is necessary to spark that excitement.

Okay so this paragraph is laying out a causal chain, in somewhat reverse order:

Good communication between scientists and public -----> excitement about science in young'uns so that they become scientists ------> flourishing national scientific community -------> successful economy

So the inference I can make must be something about this chain.


(A) If scientists communicate with the public, many young people will become excited enough about science to resolve to become professional scientists.


The passage specifies we need good communication (whatever 'good' means), not just communication in general.

(B) The extent to which a national scientific community flourishes depends principally on the number of young people who become excited enough about science to resolve to become professional scientists.

It doesn't indicate that this is the principal thing that a scientific community depends on.

(C) No nation can have a successful economy unless at some point scientists have communicated well with the public.

This seems really good. If we take what the passage states as truth, you can't have a successful economy without flourishing science, and you can't have a flourishing science without scientists having communicating well with the public.

(D) It is essential to any nation 's economy that most of the young people in that nation who are excited about science become professional scientists.


Nahhhhhh. Never says most young people who are excited become scientists. Just that some young people get excited about science to become scientists.

(E) An essential component of success in any scientific endeavor is good communication between the scientists involved in that endeavor and the public.

way out of scope.

Has to be C.

BIG TAKEAWAYS: Cause and effect is a big thing on the test. When you notice a sequence of causality, write it out!


Hi ReedArnoldMPREP,

For the explanation of answer A, while the absence of "good" works well for elimination, let's say that this option included that word for the sake of solving the question at a deeper level.
The argument says "Good communication between scientists and the public is necessary to spark that excitement" which means that ONLY IF good communication between scientists and public exists, then excitement gets sparked.
This, in turn, means that excitement getting sparked IMPLIES good communcation existed.

Therefore, we can draw the following extended inferences:
1. No good commmunication existed implies that no excitement was sparked
2. Good communication existed does not imply that excitement was sparked

With the second inference in mind, we can eliminate A.

Would you please comment on my thinking here? :)
Thanks in advance!
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2025
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
547
 [1]
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 547
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
FaxBro
ReedArnoldMPREP
First thing I do is read the question:

The science teacher's statements provide the most support for which one of the following?

Okay so we're going to be DRAWING AN INFERENCE from what is stated in the paragraph.

Science teacher: In any nation, a flourishing national scientific community is essential to a successful economy. For such a community to flourish requires that many young people become excited enough about science that they resolve to become professional scientists. Good communication between scientists and the public is necessary to spark that excitement.

Okay so this paragraph is laying out a causal chain, in somewhat reverse order:

Good communication between scientists and public -----> excitement about science in young'uns so that they become scientists ------> flourishing national scientific community -------> successful economy

So the inference I can make must be something about this chain.


(A) If scientists communicate with the public, many young people will become excited enough about science to resolve to become professional scientists.


The passage specifies we need good communication (whatever 'good' means), not just communication in general.

(B) The extent to which a national scientific community flourishes depends principally on the number of young people who become excited enough about science to resolve to become professional scientists.

It doesn't indicate that this is the principal thing that a scientific community depends on.

(C) No nation can have a successful economy unless at some point scientists have communicated well with the public.

This seems really good. If we take what the passage states as truth, you can't have a successful economy without flourishing science, and you can't have a flourishing science without scientists having communicating well with the public.

(D) It is essential to any nation 's economy that most of the young people in that nation who are excited about science become professional scientists.


Nahhhhhh. Never says most young people who are excited become scientists. Just that some young people get excited about science to become scientists.

(E) An essential component of success in any scientific endeavor is good communication between the scientists involved in that endeavor and the public.

way out of scope.

Has to be C.

BIG TAKEAWAYS: Cause and effect is a big thing on the test. When you notice a sequence of causality, write it out!


Hi ReedArnoldMPREP,

For the explanation of answer A, while the absence of "good" works well for elimination, let's say that this option included that word for the sake of solving the question at a deeper level.
The argument says "Good communication between scientists and the public is necessary to spark that excitement" which means that ONLY IF good communication between scientists and public exists, then excitement gets sparked.
This, in turn, means that excitement getting sparked IMPLIES good communcation existed.

Therefore, we can draw the following extended inferences:
1. No good commmunication existed implies that no excitement was sparked
2. Good communication existed does not imply that excitement was sparked

With the second inference in mind, we can eliminate A.

Would you please comment on my thinking here? :)
Thanks in advance!

It's a good question. So this is getting into formal logic, which I don't recommend people do unless they've already mastered the basics and are trying to understand this stuff at the very deepest level (it's typically not needed--the GMAT isn't the LSAT).

"Good communication between scientists and the public is necessary to spark excitement about science," in formal logic, means

"If there is excitement about science, then there is good communication between scientists and the public."

Which is the same logic as what you said:

"There is excitement about science only if there is good communication between scientists and the public."

Which is also the same logic as saying:

"If there's NOT good communication between scientists and the public, there's not excitement about science."

(For anyone reading this, the relationship between "If A...then B," "If not B then not A" and "A only if B" was one of the most frustrating things to grasp in formal logic for me, because 'if' and 'only if' feel similar, but they aren't. An LSAT instructor friend of mine summarized this succinctly by saying "'If' means if. 'Only if' means then.")

So these points:

Quote:
Therefore, we can draw the following extended inferences:
1. No good communication existed implies that no excitement was sparked
2. Good communication existed does not imply that excitement was sparked

Are correct.

What you can't infer from "If there is excitement about science, then there is good communication" is "If there's good communication, there will be excitement about science." So that is also why A cannot be inferred.

In pure logic language, 'good communication' is a necessary but not sufficient condition for there to be 'excitement about science.'

This is fundamentally similar to 'square/rectangle' logic. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square = excitement implies good communication but good communication doesn't imply excitement.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 19,425
Own Kudos:
Posts: 19,425
Kudos: 1,010
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
501 posts
358 posts