Professor: The number of new university students who enter as chemistry majors has not changed in the last ten years, and job prospects for graduates with chemistry degrees are better than ever. Despite this, there has been a significant decline over the past decade in the number of people earning chemistry degrees.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why has there been a significant decline over the past decade in the number of people earning chemistry degrees, even though during that period the number of new university students who enter as chemistry majors hasn’t changed, and job prospects for graduates with chemistry degrees have improved?
Objective
The correct answer should tell us about something that has changed over the past decade that could cause an increase in the number of students who graduate with a chemistry degree after starting university as a chemistry major.
A
Many students enter universities without the academic background that is necessary for majoring in chemistry.
This doesn’t tell us about something that changed over the past decade, so it can’t help explain a decline in chemistry graduates over that period. (A) might be a reason chemistry majors might change majors, but it doesn’t explain why there’s been an increase in that number.
B
There has been a significant decline in the number of undergraduate degrees earned in the natural sciences as a whole.
The stimulus gives us specific reasons to think that the number of chemistry graduates wouldn’t go down. What’s happened generally with natural sciences degrees doesn’t explain what happened to chemistry degrees.
C
Many students are very unsure of their choice when they pick a major upon entering universities.
This doesn’t tell us about something that changed over the past decade, so it can’t help explain a decline in chemistry graduates over that period. (C) suggests students would change majors, but doesn’t explain an increase in the number who change majors.
D
Job prospects for graduates with chemistry degrees are no better than prospects for graduates with certain other science degrees.
This doesn’t tell us about something that changed over the past decade, so it can’t help explain a decline in chemistry graduates over that period. Also, we still know job prospects for chem graduates has improved, so we’d still expect chem graduates not to decline.
E
Over the years, first-year chemistry has come to be taught in a more routinely methodical fashion, which dampens its intellectual appeal.
This describes a change over time that could explain why the number of students who switch away from a chemistry major has increased. This is the only answer that involves a change over time that provides a potential theory that could lead to fewer chemistry graduates.
Here's an analogy to help better see why (B) doesn't work, why it's attractive, and what the difference is between a PSA/SA answer and an NA answer.
Premise: Tom is a cat.
Conclusion: Tom likes milk.
If you see something like the above in a PSA/SA question, you might anticipate an answer like (1) "All cats like milk." That certainly would help make the argument valid. But you also would not be surprised to see an answer like (2) "All mammals like milk." Since that too would also make the argument valid (under the reasonable common sense assumption that all cats are mammals). In other words, both (1) and (2) could be the correct answer choice for PSA/SA questions.
However, just because (2) helps the argument does not mean that the author of the argument assumed it. The author could easily say, "No, I wasn't thinking about mammals at all. I was only talking about Tom, cats, and milk." It would be unreasonable to claim that the author assumed anything about mammals even though assumption (2) helps the argument greatly. Such is the nature of very strongly helpful assumptions.
I suspect this confusion might be what tempted many of you to choose (B).
Analogously, if you restate (B) to say "anyone whose political motivations are clearly discernible is an unreliable source of information to legislators", you'd get a correct PSA answer. (B) shoved back up into the shitty argument in the stimulus would really help the argument out just like how (2) shoved back up in to the Tom/cat/milk argument would help that argument out. But you cannot say that the argument assumed it. That's the difference. (B) is not descriptively accurate.
A
treats the mere fact that certain people are union members as sufficient to cast doubt on all of the viewpoints expressed by those people
B
presumes, without providing justification, that anyone whose political motivations are clearly discernible is an unreliable source of information to legislators
C
treats circumstances potentially affecting the union leaders’ argument as sufficient to discredit those leaders’ argument
D
presumes, without providing justification, that the argument it cites is the union leaders’ only argument for their view
E
presumes, without providing evidence, that leaders of all unions argue against increases in multinational control of manufacturing
Here's an analogy to help better see why (B) doesn't work, why it's attractive, and what the difference is between a PSA/SA answer and an NA answer.
Premise: Tom is a cat.
Conclusion: Tom likes milk.
If you see something like the above in a PSA/SA question, you might anticipate an answer like (1) "All cats like milk." That certainly would help make the argument valid. But you also would not be surprised to see an answer like (2) "All mammals like milk." Since that too would also make the argument valid (under the reasonable common sense assumption that all cats are mammals). In other words, both (1) and (2) could be the correct answer choice for PSA/SA questions.
However, just because (2) helps the argument does not mean that the author of the argument assumed it. The author could easily say, "No, I wasn't thinking about mammals at all. I was only talking about Tom, cats, and milk." It would be unreasonable to claim that the author assumed anything about mammals even though assumption (2) helps the argument greatly. Such is the nature of very strongly helpful assumptions.
I suspect this confusion might be what tempted many of you to choose (B).
Analogously, if you restate (B) to say "anyone whose political motivations are clearly discernible is an unreliable source of information to legislators", you'd get a correct PSA answer. (B) shoved back up into the shitty argument in the stimulus would really help the argument out just like how (2) shoved back up in to the Tom/cat/milk argument would help that argument out. But you cannot say that the argument assumed it. That's the difference. (B) is not descriptively accurate.
City leader: If our city adopts the new tourism plan, the amount of money that tourists spend here annually will increase by at least $2 billion, creating as many jobs as a new automobile manufacturing plant would. It would be reasonable for the city to spend the amount of money necessary to convince an automobile manufacturer to build a plant here, but adopting the tourism plan would cost less.
Summary
City leader: If we adopt the new tourism plan, tourists will spend at least $2 billion more each year here, creating as many jobs as a new car manufacturing plant would. It would be reasonable to spend money to attract a car manufacturing plant, but the tourism plan would cost less.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
When determining the reasonableness of implementing something that would create job growth for the city, cost is an important factor.
Adopting the new tourism plan would be reasonable.
Adopting the new tourism plan would be economically beneficial for the city.
A
The city should implement the least expensive job creation measures available.
Unsupported. We know that the new tourism plan is cheaper than attracting a car manufacturing plant, but we do not know that it is the least expensive job creating measure available. The stimulus doesn’t discuss the least expensive measures or whether they should be implemented.
B
In general, it is reasonable for the city to spend money to try to convince manufacturing companies to build plants in the city.
Unsupported. The stimulus tells us that it would be reasonable for the city to spend the money necessary to convince an automobile manufacturer to build a plant, but it does not discuss the reasonableness of attracting manufacturing companies in general.
C
The city cannot afford both to spend money to convince an automobile manufacturer to build a plant in the city and to adopt the new tourism plan.
Unsupported. We are not told how much money the city has or whether it can afford to attract a car manufacturer and implement the new tourism plan. We simply don’t know.
D
It would be reasonable for the city to adopt the new tourism plan.
Strongly supported. The new tourism plan would create as many jobs as a new car factory. It would be reasonable for the city to spend the money to attract the car factory. The new tourism plan would cost less. So it would be reasonable for the city to adopt the new tourism plan.
E
The only way the city can create jobs is by increasing tourism.
Anti-supported. The stimulus explicitly states that a new car manufacturing plant would create as many jobs as increased tourism. So increasing tourism is not the only way that the city can create jobs.