- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue Jul 19, 2016 11:53 am
#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.
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.