#12 - For years, university administrators, corporations,

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (C)

Just like in Question 11, the stimulus author begins with the “some people say…” rhetorical device,
introducing the view of university administrators, corporations, and government agencies that there
will be an “imminent and catastrophic shortage of scientists and engineers.” Predictably, the author
disagrees with this view, concluding that the “doomsayers are turning out to be wrong.” In support of
this conclusion, the author points to two facts. First, the salaries of scientists and engineers have not
experienced upward pressure, which one would expect if there were a shortage of scientists in the
field. Next, the rate of unemployment is as high for scientists and engineers as it is for those in other
fields, which appears inconsistent with a shortage of labor.

This is a Strengthen question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will provide some
additional fact that makes it more plausible that there will not be an imminent and catastrophic
shortage of scientists and engineers. Given that there is no obvious flaw in the argument as it stands,
the correct answer choice will likely just provide an additional fact in support of the conclusion, and
we should not spend time trying to predict what that fact will be.

Answer choice (A): This increase in the proportion of science and engineering research being
conducted by corporations has no effect on the conclusion, because we are concerned with the
adequate supply of scientists and engineers, not with the distribution of the work among the various
industry sectors.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice has no effect on the conclusion either, because we do not
know whether science or engineering can offer the prospect of financial success.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, because it adds a new fact that strengthens
the conclusion that it is turning out to be the case there is not an immediate and catastrophic shortage
of scientists and engineers. To the contrary, for the last five years the number of students in those
fields of study have increased significantly.

Answer choice (D): Here, the answer choice weakens the conclusion by indicating that there is a
shortage of labor in certain specializations within the fields of science and engineering. So, even
though there is not a noticeable upward pressure on the salaries of scientists and engineers generally,
and even though unemployment is as high in those fields generally as in others, there are still
shortages within the fields.

Answer choice (E): In this case, the answer choice tells us what is required to maintain science and
engineering knowledge and skills, but does not tell us anything about whether there is an adequate
supply of scientists and engineers.

[mokkyukkyu]

Hi,
I eliminated others to arrive at C, but...one thing I was not sure is even though there is a ready supply of new scientists and engineers, those students might change their majors or not end up becoming scientists or engineers...they might decide to go to law school and become lawyer for example. so I thought there would be additional assumption involved (those students WILL become scientists or engineers).
Is it still OK?? I was not sure about this..

[Adam Tyson]

You are absolutely correct, and answer C does not prove the conclusion of the argument to be true, but since this is not a Justify the Conclusion question, but is instead a Strengthen question, it doesn't have to prove anything. It only has to help, and this answer is the only choice that does help. The answer does not have to assume anything about those students actually becoming scientists or engineers, although that additional info would indeed strengthen the argument even more. Don't worry about what the answer doesn't do, but focus on what it does do. Does it help the claim that those who say we are facing an imminent shortage are wrong, even a little bit? If so, then it is a perfectly good strengthen answer with no need to add anything more to it. Don't make the challenge any harder than it already is!

[lsatfighter]

A doesn't mention science and engineering in other sectors like government agencies and universities like the stimulus did, so A is wrong.

B says or implies absolutely nothing about science or engineering, so B is wrong.

D says nothing about whether or not the oversupply exceeds the shortage, so D is out.

This left me with C and E.

For E, I thought to myself, "If there is periodic retraining and professional experience, then there are always going to be job opportunities, thereby making it less likely for there to be a shortage of scientists and engineers."

For C, I thought to myself, "Sure, the number of students has increased, but we don't know for sure whether or not they're going to become scientists or engineers in the future. Maybe they'll drop out of their science and engineering programs and choose other programs."

To me, E seemed stronger than C. Can you please explain why E is wrong and C is right?

[Brook Miscoski]

lsatfighter,

The conclusion is that there will not be a shortage of scientists, not that there will not be a shortage of jobs for them.

That changes your analysis of (C) and (E).

(C) shows that we can expect an increase in the number of graduating scientists, which strengthens the claim we will not have a shortage of scientists.

(E) potentially weakens the argument by suggesting that the supply of scientists can dwindle if they aren't retrained. It definitely doesn't strengthen the claim that we will have enough scientists.

[fycw2068]

What does "upward pressure on the salaries" mean?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi!

That phrase is intended to evoke a supply-demand issue. In a normal supply-demand model, as supply of workers drops, demand for workers rises, ultimately causing worker salaries to rise (employers have to pay more to attract the scarce workers). The author assumes that if there is nothing causing salaries to rise (no noticeable "pressure" making salaries go up), the demand for workers probably isn't rising, and thus the supply of workers is probably not dropping.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[mguitard]

Hi! I struggled with 11 and 12 a lot, but think I finally understand 12.

I chose A, and now understand why C is correct but wanted to check my reasoning. The argument is saying that the prediction of "imminent and catastrophic shortage of scientists and engineers" is wrong. So in order to strengthen this claim, that the prediction is wrong, we would need to prove that there indeed, will be no shortage.

A. doesn't aid this, it only states that there is more research being carried out, it doesn't specify by who, or how the workload is distributed. For example, there can be more workload and research done per scientist but doesn't close the gap to the claim that there will not be a shortage.

C. By saying that there is a significant increase of students in these fields, the answer assumes that these students will graduate from these fields, and go out into the workforce. More students = more scientists and engineers in the future.

Is this correct?
Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi mguitard!

Your reasoning as to why answer choice (C) is the correct answer is spot on--more students means we will likely have more scientists and engineers in the future, which strengthens the author's conclusion that the claim that there will be a shortage of scientists and engineers is incorrect.

Your reasoning regarding answer choice (A), however, isn't quite there. Answer choice (A) does refer to how the work is distributed--it states that the work proportion of research being carried out by corporations is larger than it was five years ago. So let's say there are three major sectors which perform scientific research--corporations, the government, and universities. Answer choice (A) just tells us that corporations have a larger proportion of that research work than they used to. So maybe 5 years ago it was 30% corporations, 20% government, and 50% universities and now it's 45% corporations, 15% government, and 40% universities. But this tells us nothing about the overall amount of research being conducted, nor does it tell us anything about whether or not we have enough scientists employed between these three sectors to conduct all of the scientific research that needs to be done.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey