Question

Peter: More than ever before in Risland, college graduates with science degrees are accepting permanent jobs in other fields. That just goes to show that scientists in Risland are not being paid enough.
Lila: No, it does not. These graduates are not working in science for the simple reason that there are not enough jobs in science in Risland to employ all of these graduates.
Which of the following, if true in Risland, would most undermine the reasoning in Peter's argument?

• A. The college graduates with science degrees who are not working in science are currently earning lower salaries than they would earn as scientists.
• B. Fewer college students than ever before are receiving degrees in science.
• C. The number of jobs in science has steadily risen in the last decade.
• D. A significant number of college graduates with science degrees worked at low-paying jobs while they were in college.
• E. Every year some recent college graduates with science degrees accept permanent jobs in nonscientific fields.

Hint:

To weaken a causal argument, you can (1) show that the proposed cause is not present, (2) show that the effect is present even when the cause is absent, or (3) provide an alternative cause. Option (A) attacks the argument by showing that the logical incentive for Peter's proposed cause (seeking higher pay) is absent.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks us to find a piece of information that would weaken Peter's argument. Peter's argument follows a cause-and-effect structure: \begin{itemize} \item Observation (Effect): Science graduates are taking jobs in other fields. \item Conclusion (Cause): Scientists are not being paid enough. \end{itemize} Peter's reasoning assumes that the graduates are making a choice to leave science for a better alternative, and he identifies low pay as the motivation. To undermine his reasoning, we need to attack this assumed cause.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
We are looking for an option that suggests low pay is not the reason why graduates are leaving science fields. \begin{itemize} \item (A) This statement directly contradicts the logical foundation of Peter's argument. If graduates are accepting non-science jobs that pay even less than science jobs, then low pay in science cannot be the reason they are leaving. They are clearly motivated by something other than salary, or perhaps they are not choosing freely (as Lila suggests). This severely undermines Peter's conclusion. \item (B) The number of students receiving science degrees doesn't affect the reasoning about why those who do have degrees are choosing non-science jobs. \item (C) This option weakens Lila's argument (that there aren't enough jobs), but it does not directly weaken Peter's. In fact, by suggesting jobs are available, it might slightly strengthen the idea that graduates are actively choosing to leave for other reasons, like pay. \item (D) Previous work experience in low-paying jobs is irrelevant to the decision-making process for permanent, post-graduation careers. \item (E) This simply restates the premise of Peter's argument. It confirms the observation but does nothing to challenge his reasoning about the cause. \end{itemize} Step 3: Final Answer:
Option (A) provides the strongest counter-evidence to Peter's specific claim about motivation, making it the best choice to undermine his reasoning.