PrepTest 121, Section 1, Question 19
Analyst: A recent survey showed that although professors(57 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(11 more words not shown)
- AIn universities there(11 more words not shown)
- BBiologists who do(12 more words not shown)
- CBiology professors get(11 more words not shown)
- DConducting biological research(10 more words not shown)
- EBiologists who hold(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being underrepresented doesn't tell us why these professors aren't getting appointed.
Biology professors who teach but don't research make up one twentieth of science professors, yet receive less than one twentieth of the scientific administrative appointments. I can see why that raises a question. But the analyst has picked a particular explanation: administrators are biased against them because they don't research.
What if the groups differ in some other relevant way? Perhaps some teaching-only professors work part time, or the candidates differ in qualifications for administrative work. Those are possibilities to investigate, not facts about teachers or researchers. The numbers alone don't rule them out.
What we’re looking for
For a weakener, I'd look for a reason to doubt that the lack of research causes the appointment pattern. An alternative explanation would help. The goal is to challenge this explanation of the numbers, not to deny that the numbers are accurate.
Working the answers
- A
The comparison already concerns scientific administrative positions. How many nonscientific positions also exist doesn't explain why this group receives a smaller share of the scientific appointments than its share of science professors. We shouldn't change the category being counted.
- BCorrect
This takes a different route from the possibility I raised about candidates' qualifications: biology professors who do research are underrepresented too. That makes it harder to attribute the pattern specifically to the other professors' failure to research. Perhaps some feature of biology appointments, rather than the teaching-only status, accounts for the low representation.
This doesn't prove discrimination against biologists or establish that the two groups receive identical appointment rates. Research status could still have some effect. But the same general disadvantage among researchers weakens the analyst's proposed explanation. It gives us a useful comparison without proving the true cause.
- C
Receiving grant money is different from receiving an administrative appointment. Biologists could receive substantial funding while having little representation in those positions. The grant figure doesn't explain the appointment pattern or show why not researching is or isn't responsible for it.
- D
Time spent on research doesn't tell us what determines the appointments. It might make us wonder about candidates' availability, but D doesn't say how that availability affects hiring or compare the relevant candidates. We can't fill in that missing story and treat it as an established alternative explanation.
- E
This concerns how long biologists keep positions after obtaining them. The analyst's evidence concerns their appointments to positions. Shorter tenure doesn't by itself explain why the nonresearching group receives fewer appointments or identify what leads administrators to choose particular candidates.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.