QUESTION TEXT: University president: When a faculty member's…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Conform
- The falsification of research was due to dishonestly, not low standards.
- It is nonetheless good that we are talking about standards, because those require constant vigilance.
ANALYSIS: This is a situation where the critics are wrong, but the discussion is helpful, so it’s ok.
Significantly, the true cause is a fairly innocent cause, and the discussion is about the more important cause. You should look for all three factors: 1. Wrong critics. 2. Simple cause. 3. Discussion helpful.
Note that many answers say “simple” corruption. The word simple distinguishes this from systemic corruption. It also suggests that oversight is more important compared to “simple” corruption. i.e. Simple corruption might be a situation where a bureaucrat steals money, but this theft is highly unusual, and rare.
- This mixes both oversight and corruption as a cause. We should look for something which says: “corruption was the cause, but people blame oversight.”
- CORRECT. This matches. True cause is “simple” corruption, not the more important oversight. But oversight always needs talking about, so it’s good that we are talking about it.
- This says the scandal is attributed to both causes. In the stimulus it was only attributed to one.
- This gets things backwards. It’s like saying “The falsification of research was due to low standards, not dishonesty. Blaming is on dishonesty alone is harmful.”
- There are two problems here:
1. The problem is attributed to “simple” corruption, which is the less serious of the two problems.
2. The conclusion doesn’t match. In the stimulus, the conclusion was “the critics are wrong, but the discussion is helpful, so it’s ok”. Here, the answer says “the critics are largely right”.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions