Last year, support for the social and behavioral sciences represented

Question

Last year, support for the social and behavioral sciences represented only about three percent of the government's total budget for research funds in the United States. Thus, the particularly sharp reductions imposed on such programs this year seem dictated not by financial constraints but by social philosophy.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the conclusion of the passage above is based?

(A) The government funds allocated for research in the social and behavioral sciences are not sufficient for the work that needs to be done.
(B) The social and behavioral sciences are as valuable as the physical and biological sciences.
(C) The current reductions will stop research in the social and behavioral sciences.
(D) Government funding is the primary source of research money in the United States.
(E) Three percent is an insignificant portion of the government's total budget for research funds.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Last year SSc got only 3% of the Govt's budget for research.
Sharp reductions have been imposed on SSc programs this year.

Conclusion: They seem to be dictated by social philosophy, not financial constraints.

The argument is saying that only 3% money was allocated to SSc last year and this year there has been a sharp reduction. It seems that SSc is not considered important and that is why the reduction (not because money is less)
The argument relies on assuming that 3% allocation shows that SSc is not considered important. 
Option (E) tells us that.

(A) The government funds allocated for research in the social and behavioral sciences are not sufficient for the work that needs to be done.

The argument does not deal with whether the amount of money is sufficient or not.

(B) The social and behavioral sciences are as valuable as the physical and biological sciences.

Again, the argument does not deal with whether SSc are as valuable as other sciences. It just talks about the value of SSc.

(C) The current reductions will stop research in the social and behavioral sciences.

The argument doesn't assume that the reduction will stop research. It just deals with the motive behind reduction this year by the Govt.

(D) Government funding is the primary source of research money in the United States.

Again, not relevant. Whether Govt funding is the primary source or there are other sources, the argument doesn't discuss. It just deals with the motive behind reduction this year by the Govt.

Answer (E)

Carcass · Answer

Last year, support for the social and behavioral sciences represented only about three percent of the government's total budget for research funds in the United States. Thus,   the particularly sharp reductions imposed   on such programs this year seem dictated   not by  financial constraints    but by social philosophy.

This particularly reduction indicates we CAN do it. And IF we can do it means the impact on the overall budget is NOT critical.

Moreover, the blue part, tells us that the reduction is ALSO not related to financial motivations. Turns out, the reduction is not critical to the budget.

turns out, its impact is negligible.

E is the best option. This is a GREAT question. It seems conceived just for those who go for business programs.

Regards

churuand · Answer

Can you please elaborate more on the sentence that explain we CAN do it? I do not understand how sharp reductions mean we can do it.

Posted from my mobile device

Carcass · Answer

We can do it means that in terms of federal budget we can reduce the financial allocations to that particular post in the budget

Think when a precise amount of money is allocated to health care and then with an exceptional action we divert those funds to the military section. Usually from the accountability standing point, this is not allowed.

In this scenario, if we can do it is ONLy because we can. I.E. the spending on that particular allocation in the budget is negligible.

Hope now is more clear. This question is sophisticated.

Regards

Carcass · Answer

For the budget being reduced the government must have bright reasons to do so (even though in reality and real life is almost never this way: the reduction should not be arbitrary but based on precise regulatory rules and accountability principle. Indeed, it does not work this manner)

The end of the stem says

Quote:

social philosophy.

That means the shift is not based on the rules I mentioned above. Therefore, in theory, the reduction is possible because it is negligible. The curtails will not have any reasonable impact on the research budget as a whole

See also my explanation above https://gmatclub.com/forum/last-year-su ... l#p2464251

Regards

Carcass · Answer

(A) The government funds allocated for research in the social and behavioral sciences are not sufficient for the work that needs to be done.

We do have a particularly sharp reduction. No one is talking about whether the funds are sufficient or not

(B) The social and behavioral sciences are as valuable as the physical and biological sciences.

This is just an opinion if the research field is valuable or not. I.E useful or not

(C) The current reductions will stop research in the social and behavioral sciences.

No information is provided in order to stop it or not

(D) Government funding is the primary source of research money in the United States.

We do not know if we have other resources than the government

(E) Three percent is an insignificant portion of the government's total budget for research funds.

Correct. See my explanations in the previous posts.

Regards

ajaygaur319 · Answer

Premise : The budget in research for the social and behavioral sciences department was reduced to 3% of the total budget.
 Conclusion : The reduction seems to be dictated by social philosophy rather than financial constraints

Prethinking : 
1. The scenarios in which the budget will be directed by social philoshophy and this can happen when we have people with opposite philosophy in the government or committee which allocates the funds. Could not find any such assumption in answer choices
2. Another scenario in which the budget will be directed by financial constraints is when the amount of budget is significant. -  option (E)  is in the direction of this assumption and negating this option, we'll get this scenario.

(A) The government funds allocated for research in the social and behavioral sciences are not sufficient for the work that needs to be done. -  The funds might not be sufficient for the work in that particular department but it provides no info about whether the budget was reduced due to financial constraints or social philosophy 
(B) The social and behavioral sciences are as valuable as the physical and biological sciences. -  Irrelevant to the argument 
(C) The current reductions will stop research in the social and behavioral sciences. -  similar to option (A) 
(D) Government funding is the primary source of research money in the United States. -  This seemed to be somewhat logical to me but negating this option will not provide any info about the why the budget was reduced. This actually makes the budget amount significant 
(E) Three percent is an insignificant portion of the government's total budget for research funds. -  That's our prethought assumption and negating this will break the conclusion.

Last year, support for the social and behavioral sciences represented

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

Last year, support for the social and behavioral sciences represented

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