Analyst: A recent survey showed that although professors of biology wh

Question

Analyst: A recent survey showed that although professors of biology who teach but do not pursue research made up one twentieth of all science professors, they were appointed to fewer than one twentieth of all the scientific administrative positions in universities. We can conclude from this survey that failing to pursue research tends to bias university administrators against appointing these professors to scientific administrative positions.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the support for the analyst’s conclusion?

(A) In universities there are fewer scientific administrative positions than there are nonscientific administrative positions.

(B) Biologists who do research fill a disproportionately low number of scientific administrative positions in universities.

(C) Biology professors get more than one twentieth of all the science grant money available.

(D) Conducting biological research tends to take significantly more time than does teaching biology.

(E) Biologists who hold scientific administrative positions in the university tend to hold those positions for a shorter time than do other science professors.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Ideally, the huge flaw in this argument has started to jump out at you by now. The evidence is about  correlation : biology professors who don’t do research are underrepresented in university administrative positions. (There’s a negative correlation between being a biology professor who doesn’t do research and getting an administrative position.) But the conclusion is causal: biology professors who don’t do research are underrepresented  because their lack of research subjects them to bias . This is totally speculative—other than the correlation, there is zero evidence to back up the causal relationship in the conclusion.

We’re asked to weaken the conclusion, so let’s attack the argument before we even look at the answer choices. Remember: Just because A and B are correlated doesn’t mean A causes B. Could B cause A (reversal of cause and effect)? Could C cause both A and B (something else causes an apparent relationship between A and B, even though A and B are actually not related at all)?

The reversal of cause and effect definitely seems possible here. Maybe the lack of an administrative position makes it harder to do research? Lack of funding, perhaps? If that’s true, then the argument is destroyed.

An alternate cause could also be at play here, and as a matter of fact, it’s suggested by the given facts. The facts say 1) biology professors who 2) don’t do research are underrepresented in administrative positions. And then it claims that the lack of research is the causal factor. But what about being a  biology  professor? Might biology professors be discriminated against generally? If that’s true, then the argument is destroyed.

A) No, the argument was solely about “scientific administrative positions.” Nonscientific positions are simply not relevant.

B) Bingo. This matches our second prediction. If biologists are discriminated against  whether or not they do research , then how could the speaker claim that lack of research causes discrimination?

C) This is either irrelevant (Grant money? Where was that mentioned?) or it conceivably strengthens the idea that lack of research causes discrimination. There’s a ton of money for biology, but you don’t get the grant money unless you do research, so biologists who don’t do research get discriminated against. We’re looking for a weakener, and we’ve already found a great one in B, so we can go ahead and dismiss C.

D) I’m not sure what time management has to do with anything.

E) Length of tenure is also not relevant. The question is, “Why do bio professors who don’t do research get shafted?”

B says, “All bio professors get shafted,” which is just as good an explanation as the analyst’s proposed, “Professors who don’t research get shafted.” Since B casts some serious doubt on the analyst’s position, B is our answer.

sanjitscorps18 · Answer

(A) In universities there are fewer scientific administrative positions than there are nonscientific administrative positions. --> these groups are not being compared. Irrelevant.

(B) Biologists who do research fill a disproportionately low number of scientific administrative positions in universities. ---> Even people who do research are low in numbers. Although we do not have a comparison group , this still contradicts the bias. Lets keep it.

(C) Biology professors get more than one twentieth of all the science grant money available. --> Irrelevant

(D) Conducting biological research tends to take significantly more time than does teaching biology. --> Irrelevant

(E) Biologists who hold scientific administrative positions in the university tend to hold those positions for a shorter time than do other science professors. --> Irrelevant

Option B comes out as only relevant answer.

REALMAREZ · Answer

Yee B is right

(A) In universities there are fewer scientific administrative positions than there are  nonscientific administrative positions. ----------> irrilevant

(B) Biologists who do research fill a disproportionately low number of scientific administrative positions in universities.

(C) Biology professors get more than one twentieth of all the science  grant money available. ----------> irrilevant

(D) Conducting biological research tends to  take significantly more time  than does teaching biology.----------> irrilevant

(E) Biologists who hold scientific administrative positions in the university tend to hold those positions for a shorter time than do other science professors.----------> out of scope

unraveled · Answer

Analyst: A recent survey showed that although professors of biology who teach but do not pursue research made up one twentieth of all science professors, they were appointed to fewer than one twentieth of all the scientific administrative positions in universities. We can conclude from this survey that failing to pursue research tends to bias university administrators against appointing these professors to scientific administrative positions.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the support for the analyst’s conclusion?

(A) In universities there are  fewer scientific administrative positions than  there are nonscientific administrative positions. - WRONG. A comparison is uncalled for.

(B)  Biologists who do research fill a disproportionately low number  of scientific administrative positions in universities. - CORRECT. Not the best of the answer one looks for but the best in the lot. However, if disproportionate thing is uniform among biologits then university administrators' bias seems unreasonable. It can't be so that bias is there but there is an inherentness why such low number exists in the case of biologists.

(C) Biology professors get more than one twentieth of all the science  grant money available . - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(D)  Conducting biological research  tends to take significantly  more time than  does teaching biology. - WRONG. An irrelevant aspect compared and both front this one loses out.

(E) Biologists who hold scientific administrative positions in the university  tend to hold those positions for a shorter time than  do other science professors. - WRONG. Nice diversion but it is not about holding position but appointment to those position.

Answer B.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Analyst: A recent survey showed that although professors of biology wh

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

Analyst: A recent survey showed that although professors of biology wh

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