Top Law Schools

Science writer: Scientists' astounding success rate with research problems they have been called upon to solve causes the public to believe falsely
that science can solve any problem. In fact, the problems scientists are called upon to solve are typically selected by scientists themselves.
When the problems are instead slected by politicians or business leaders, their formulation is nevertheless guided by scientists in such a way
as to make scientific solutions feasible. Scientists are almost never asked to solve problems that are not subject to such formulation.

Inference. What must be true?

C is the answer which says : scientists would probably have a lower success rate with research problems if their grounds for selecting such
problems were less narrow.

My questions:

1. please give me the full diagram of the stimulus. I mean the entire stimulus whatever can be diagramed. help me plz.

2. how do I diagram the correct answer C? how am i supposed to diagram "if their grounds for selecting such problems were less narrow"?
and what does it mean that the selection is less narrow? They dont pick the problems themselves? they dont guide the problem in a way that
they can formulate the problem to be feasible to solve?

3. what if there is an argument that goes

A -> B
A -> C

then what is the relationship between B and C? unknown? B -> C ?? C -> B ??

Ok. So let's break down the stimulus:

- Scientists' high success rate causes false public confidence.
- Problems were selected by scientists OR by politicians/business leaders who make solutions feasible
- Scientists almost never asked to solve unfeasible problems.

Diagramming this probably isn't the most important, but you could probably sketch out the general idea like this:

Solved problems --> problems have feasible solutions

So it's not 100% hard and fast, but we know that generally, the problems scientists are asked to solve are feasibly solved by scientific solutions.

And we know that the false public confidence is caused by the astounding success rate. But, as you will soon find out, that information is basically irrelevant to the answer. Make sure irrelevant info doesn't trip you up - it's often thrown in there to distract you and has no bearing on the logic of the answer choice.

So what can we infer from the stimulus? In plain English, that the astounding success rate might not be as high if scientists were asked to solve problems that WEREN'T feasible. C addresses this directly. Again, if you want to go the diagramming route (which I wouldn't in this question because it's not necessary,) you would take the contrapositive and say No feasible solution --> no solved problem.

Now, C doesn't say EXACTLY that contrapositive, which is where some of your questions come in. "If their grounds for selecting such problems were less narrow" means, basically, "If they selected a wider range of problems." Right now we know that the problems are either selected by or formulated by scientists in such a way to make them solvable. If they were forced to investigate problems from OTHER sources, where the questions were not specifically formulated to be suitable for scientific inquiry, then they might not be able to solve them so easily.

To question 3: the relationship between B and C is unknown. You can, however, combine those statements as
A -> B and C
~B or ~C -> ~A

Hope that helped!

thank god for internet and for your help.
You explanation does make it easier.

so the scientists have hige success rate beacuse regardless of who picks the problem, the solution is feasible.
the high success rate is due to the solution being guided to be feasible.
thus, therefore if the solutions are not feasible they would have a lower success rate. hmmm interesting.

You see, I also have vague idea that I do not need to diagram every single inference questions, so vague that I cant even
put it in words. Would you give me some advise when the stimulus is worthy of spending time diagraming and when its not?
Like this question is complex and I admire you for easily extracting the essense of the logic.
How do I develope such skills?

Simply my question is when you look at an inference question, 1. what are some tips to efficiently extract the core logic
and to spot superflous details? and 2. how do I judge if an inference question stimulus is worthy of being diagramed or not?

Thank you

cc.celina wrote: To question 3: the relationship between B and C is unknown. You can, however, combine those statements as
A -> B and C
~B or ~C -> ~A

You can also say this about B and C:
B -s- C
Or Some Bs are Cs (and some Cs are Bs).

How do we know this? As exist, and they're both B and C. Therefore, B and C both show up in As, so there are some things out there that are both B and C.