LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 9020
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#27276
Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—#%. The correct answer choice is (B)

The argument in this stimulus is that universities are biased against appointing professors who do not pursue research to administrative positions. This conclusion is based on the fact that, while professors of biology who do not pursue research make up 1/20th of science professors, this same group of professors are appointed to fewer than 1/20th of all scientific administrative positions.

Consider the causal nature of this argument: the lack of research is said to be the reason that these biology professors are so infrequently appointed to administrative positions. To attack this argument you should look for an answer choice that breaks the linkage between this cause (no research) and the effect (low frequency of appointment).

Answer choice (A): This answer choice about the number of available administrative position does not attack the idea that the frequency of appointment is still lower than expected.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice shows that even when the cause is absent (research does occur), the effect still occurs (there is still a disproportionately low frequency of appointments), thereby weakening the casual argument in the stimulus.

Answer choice (C): The argument is about administrative appointments, not grant money.

Answer choice (D): The argument is about the low frequency of appointments, so the amount of time it takes to conduct research is not relevant (all that matters is attacking the causal relation between a lack of research and a disproportionately low frequency/number of appointments to admin positions).

Answer choice (E): Again, the argument is about biologists who do not get scientific administrative positions, so an answer choice about the behavior of those who do does not address the argument.
 yourfavoriteamber
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: Mar 15, 2017
|
#39671
I thought the correct answer here was actually a trick, because instead of referring to 'professors of biology' they used 'biologists' In this case, it was safe to assume that they are indeed referring to professors of biology as biologists. However, it seems this sort of thing can go either way.
 nicholaspavic
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 271
  • Joined: Jun 12, 2017
|
#39797
Hi amber,

I think that the stimulus goes a bit further than that and not only suggests "biologists who do research" but also that they are ones who are working at universities. Although they didn't use the title of "professor," the answer choice gives it enough qualifications beyond just biologists in general, to suggest that these are also biologists employed in higher education.

Thanks and I hope this helped!
User avatar
 Morgan2cats
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: Nov 02, 2023
|
#112244
Hi PowerScore,

Thank you for your clear explanation!

I understand why B is correct, and Weaken Question doesn't require us to disprove the conclusion, but I’m still a bit confused:

B doesn’t seem particularly strong to me. The fact that biologists who do research are also disproportionately underrepresented (effect without cause) doesn’t seem to disprove the conclusion, especially since the conclusion only states that they "tend to." Am I thinking about this correctly? Thanks a lot!
User avatar
 Amber Thomas
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: Oct 03, 2024
|
#112272
Hi Morgan!

Let's start by breaking down our stimulus:

Premise 1) 1/20 of all science professors teach but do not pursue research.
Premise 2) Science professors who teach but do not pursue research are appointed to fewer than 1/20 of scientific admin positions in universities.
Conclusion) Therefore, failing to pursue research tends to bias university admin against appointing these science professors to scientific admin positions.

We want to weaken our analyst's conclusion here-- as you said, we don't need to outright disprove it, we just need to cast doubt upon it.

Answer Choice B states: "biologists who do research fill a disproportionately low number of scientific administrative positions in universities."

This indicates that even those science professors who DO perform research are not often appointed to scientific administrative positions. What this tells us is that the determining factor is likely NOT whether or not these science professors do research, rather, it is likely a different set of criteria/reasons. Therefore, this casts doubt on our analyst's reasoning that whether or not these professors conduct research is what determines whether or not they get scientific administrative positions.

I hope this helps!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.