Logical reasoning PrepTest 121 · Section 1 · Question 19

Incorrect. The stimulus looks at the ratios of professors who do and don't research, and who are and aren't in scientific administrative positions. As such, the relative number of these administrative positions vs. others is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Survey - Bio teachers who teach but don't research are 1/20 of all science professors but in less than 1/20 of all scientific admin positions
Conclusion - Not doing research causes the administrators not to appoint these teachers to admin positions

Answer Anticipation:
Weaken (and Strengthen) questions frequently have correlation/causation flaws, and arguments that draw conclusions from study results also tend to have that flaw (as well as sampling flaws). Let's start our analysis there!

Are the results of the study correlations? They are—statistical relationships are always correlations. While the correlations here can be a little difficult to categorize, they are correlations. With that, we can see that there is a correlation/causation flaw because the conclusion says that one thing "bias[es]" another—and anything that has an effect is a cause. So the argument is assuming that failing to pursue research causes people to tend to be passed over for administrative positions, because failing to pursue research is correlated with having a lower rate than expected of being appointed to such positions.

Since this argument has a correlation/causation flaw, we can weaken it using one of our common methods:
(1) Identify an alternative cause (something else that results in both an unlikelihood to pursue research and fail to be appointed to one of these positions, such as maybe a lot of external commitments)
(2) Counterexamples (teachers who pursue research and don't get such appointments; teachers with the appointments who don't pursue research)
(3) Reversed causality (which could make sense here—the lack of appointments might lead people to pull back from the university and thus not perform research)

With that outlined, there's actually a feature in this stimulus that can let us get a bit more specific here, trying back into the other common flaw with studies—sampling flaws. There are more points of comparison between the groups than just research—the premise isn't just about teachers who don't research, but specifically biology teachers who don't research. Since the conclusion is about scientific administrative positions and not just ones for biology, it's possible that it's being a biology teacher that results in the school's admin not appointing someone to the position.

Bringing these two anticipations together, we can say that the most likely answer (though not the only potential one) is something about biology professors who do research making up a disproportionately small number of scientific administrators, bridging the gap between a counterexample (no cause, effect) and alternative cause (being a bio professor).

Answer Explanation:
This answer matches our anticipation, bringing together common correlation/causation and sampling weaken answers. If biologists who do research also fill a lower-than-expected number of these positions, then the supposed cause (not doing research) is absent in some cases when the effect is present. As such, the common element between the cases that lead to the effect is more likely to be the cause of the effect, and with this answer, that shared element is being a biologist. By supporting an alternative cause/explanation, this answer weakens the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments that rely on studies frequently have correlation/causation flaws, and sampling flaws. If both are flaws of the argument, then there's likely an alternative cause or counterexample that can be specifically anticipated, which will make finding the correct answer much easier.

Incorrect. Grant money is out of scope since it's not inherently tied to the number of professors researching in an area, nor the number of those professors who are in administrative positions. More grant money could mean more research, or it could mean more exciting research or more expensive research.

Incorrect. There is a potential answer about time investment here, as not having the time to research could hint that a professor also doesn't have time to accept an administrative position. However, this answer compares teaching and researching as far as time commitment is concerned, not the other time commitments of those who do and don't research, so this comparison is out of scope.

Incorrect. First, this answer is a bit weak in stating a comparative metric—"shorter." That could mean that, on average, they hold them one day less, which wouldn't have much of an impact on the argument. Second, even if it stated that they held these positions for significantly less time, there's no indication that this would have an impact on their appointment. It's possible that the school's administration prefers to have people serving shorter terms in these positions so that people don't get tenure or to get fresh ideas in.