a question about OG11 56

oldereaper

The problem addresses that the underrepresentation of social scientists on NIH cousils results in a lack in NIH funding for social researches. The correct answer says, a significant increase in representation on NIH cousil would result in increase of NIH funding for social researches.

I dont understant this. From my point of view, Underrepresentation -> lack of NIH funding => increase of NIH funding NEEDS increase of representation of social scientists on NIH cousil, but not neccesarily the other way. Can some one help with this? Thank you so much

sinorachels

结论是:the underrepresentation of social scientists results in a relative lack of NIH financial support for research in the social sciences.

找支持

A significant increase in representation of social scientists on NIH advisory council would result in increase of NIH funding for social researches.

其它选项推不出可支持结论, 只有B可以支持

请指教

oldereaper

Thank you. Excluding other choices does lead to the answer B

Where I got confused was a seemingly derivation of A->B -> Not A -> Not B, which is not rigorous.

If I say, other factors are also important, like strong policy bias towards other fields in NIH, in contributing to the lack of funding for Social Sciences. Then Increase the representation wouldn't necessaily result in better a funding situation for Social Sciences. But now, my understanding is that the passage stated : "Since cousil advices NIH directors and infuence policy, blah blah blah", it necessarily connects the representation of members in NIH and funding support, then the relation becomes A <-> B. Then this whole conclusion becomes rigorous.

I dont know if this can explain

和imbalance

同问

难道只有用排除法，别的都明显不对所以选B？可是B选项也有些不合逻辑

丁香花儿

我看这个问题只不过是一个比例问题，不要把增加看作为逆否就可以了，不知道这样解释有帮助吗

yumeeiko

不要用充分必要来理解，这只是一个正向相关的问题。

另外，缺乏代表取反是不缺乏，而不是增加代表。