Hi SteelBranch,You're actually raising a fair point about how wide the word "science" is, so let me meet you right there. You're worried that "science" might be a big umbrella (natural + social science), and that biology sits under only one part of it. But here's the thing:
the size of the umbrella doesn't matter - only that biology sits somewhere under it.Think about what the question actually needs. The entire solution rests on one relationship:
every biology course is a science course, so the biology group lives
inside the science group. That's all. It does not need science to be
only natural science, and it does not need biology to cover any particular slice.
Now test your own worry against that:
- If "science" = natural science only - biology is still inside it. ✓
- If "science" = natural
plus social science - the science circle just got
bigger, and biology is still inside it. ✓
Widening the category can only make the science circle larger; it can never push biology
out of it. So no matter how GMAC intends the scope, the subset relationship - biology ⊆ science - holds. And that subset relationship is the only assumption the combined statements use to get
40% -
28% =
12%.
A quick parallel to lock it in: "A robin is a bird." That stays true whether you define "bird" narrowly (songbirds, like the robin) or broadly (every feathered animal). Broadening "bird" never kicks the robin out.
So you don't have to decipher GMAC's exact taxonomy here. You only have to confirm the containment -
is biology a kind of science? Yes - and that single fact is enough to keep the answer at
C.
Answer: CSteelBranch
Natural Science is Science
Social Science is also Science
Biology is part of Natural Science but not part of Social Science
How do you decipher intentions of GMAC?