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
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.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2008-1-17 14:08:00
楼主
