While political discourse and the media in the United States

[Ramesh]

While political discourse and the media in the United States have focused on the rise of job outsourcing, few have mentioned the sharp fall of talent "insourcing," or the drop in enrollment of foreign-born graduate students since 2001, and its dire results. The decrease in such insourcing will hurt America’s competitiveness in basic research and applied technology, with serious consequences for years to come. The de-internationalization of graduate programs across the country will also negatively affect the global outlook and experience of the American students remaining in those programs; they will not have the opportunity to learn about foreign cultures directly from members of those cultures. What distinguishes the decline of talent insourcing from the rise of job outsourcing is that the former can be easily rectified by a policy change of the United States government.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the author’s claim regarding the impact of decreased insourcing in America?

A What is the cost to reverse the trend of insourcing in America?
B How does insourcing replace domestic jobs lost from outsourcing?
C Since 2001, what has been the decrease in the number of foreign-born students in America?
D What opportunities do American graduate students have to interact regularly with foreigners who are not students?
E What effect would a government policy have on the number of foreign graduate students?

The answer is supposed to be D. But I picked E because I thought the conclusion was "The factor that distinguishes the decline of talent insourcing from the rise of job outsourcing is that the former can be easily rectified by a policy change of the United States government. ". So the answer to the question "What effect would a government policy have on the number of foreign graduate students?" helps in evaluating the conclusion of the author. Please help me understand the reasoning behind D.

[RonPurewal]

So the answer to the question "What effect would a government policy have on the number of foreign graduate students?" helps in evaluating the conclusion of the author.

you are correct in asserting that the answer to this question would help in addressing the final claim in the passage (the very last sentence).
BUT
that's not what you're asked to do.

the question asks you for a consideration that will help in evaluating the author's "claim regarding the IMPACT of decreased insourcing". there are 2 such claims:
1: decreased insourcing compromises america's competitiveness in research and technology;
2: decreased insourcing is detrimental to the global outlook of american students because they won't be exposed to foreigners.

choice (e), while relevant to the last sentence of the passage, will do nothing to establish or undermine the integrity of the above 2 claims. choice (d), on the other hand, has a direct bearing on the integrity of claim number 2.

you must read the question very, very, very carefully!

[lianne]

I was struggling with this one for a while as well - perfect explanation. thanks.

[JonathanSchneider]

: )

[shakil]

I actually think that choice C is an even better answer..

"C Since 2001, what has been the decrease in the number of foreign-born students in America? "

It gets directly at the IMPACT. Why is this a wrong answer?

[NIKESH_PAHUJA]

I actually think that choice C is an even better answer..

"C Since 2001, what has been the decrease in the number of foreign-born students in America? "

It gets directly at the IMPACT. Why is this a wrong answer?

Shakil , The number of students wont matter in this case.

It wont make any difference - what has been the decrease in the number of foreign-born students in America since 2001.

whether the decrease is 20 students or 50 students. The claim that number has decreased is valid in both cases.

The only thing what matters in such question is - what effect the answer choice has on the claim or conclusion.

If , as given in D, american gets oppertunities to exchange cultures outside college or universities, the claim that fall in insourcing , by diminishing the interaction with foreigners, will affect the outlook and experience of the american students pursuing the program, is refuted

[RonPurewal]

I actually think that choice C is an even better answer..

"C Since 2001, what has been the decrease in the number of foreign-born students in America? "

It gets directly at the IMPACT. Why is this a wrong answer?

Shakil , The number of students wont matter in this case.

It wont make any difference - what has been the decrease in the number of foreign-born students in America since 2001.

whether the decrease is 20 students or 50 students. The claim that number has decreased is valid in both cases.

The only thing what matters in such question is - what effect the answer choice has on the claim or conclusion.

If , as given in D, american gets oppertunities to exchange cultures outside college or universities, the claim that fall in insourcing , by diminishing the interaction with foreigners, will affect the outlook and experience of the american students pursuing the program, is refuted

good answer.

also, note that choice (c) just says "students", not "graduate students". this broadens the scope to an unacceptable extent (in this argument, we don't care about students who are not graduate students).

[tgt.ivyleague]

good answer.

also, note that choice (c) just says "students", not "graduate students". this broadens the scope to an unacceptable extent (in this argument, we don't care about students who are not graduate students).

Dear Ron,
I had also gone ahead with option C but this is a good way of looking at the answer.

But pl tell me, in an argument eval Ques .....Does one have to read THAT closely so as to differentiate betweens students and "grad" students ??
Coz i feel that in both cases, we are talking of the impact of foreign-students. No ??

At the same time, i am in slight variance with what Nikesh has said. Its not about the number being 20 or 50 ... its about the answer being ZERO or something else.
What i mean is that if the answer to the option C says that they students HAVE NOT decreased (zero), then the whole claim of the author falls flat as it refutes the basis of her conclusions?? Right ??

Or am i missing something in my evaluation here !??!?! What i ask is that in case option C had mentioned grad students, then which option would have been better ???

Please Guide.

Thanks in advance ..... Sam

[sudaif]

The argument has already established that there has been a "sharp fall of talent insourcing". I don't believe that is a point of contention. Ron's point about students vs graduate students is a very fine yet common one - that I almost never pick up on.
Finally, the specific question is asking us about the IMPACT of decreased insourcing in America - thus we must shift out focus from evaluating whether there has been an impact or not.
This is an overall tricky question.

[tim]

Yes, it is very important to pay attention to the exact wording of these questions. If they say "students" rather than "grad students" there's probably a reason. Not a guarantee, but worth paying special attention to..

[gurucharan.kodali]

I have one question? I picked option E. If the policy has a positive/negative effect on the students (insourcing), then insourcing would in turn affect (positive/negative) the claims too right! since the claims and insourcing are not mutually exclusive. Please explain if there is any other way to dismiss option E in this case.

[ChrisB]

Hi,

Good question.

I have one question? I picked option E. If the policy has a positive/negative effect on the students (insourcing), then insourcing would in turn affect (positive/negative) the claims too right! since the claims and insourcing are not mutually exclusive. Please explain if there is any other way to dismiss option E in this case.

Answer choice E does not address the impact of decreased insourcing in America. It's true that government policy could have an effect on insourcing, but it is not necessarily the case that it would have an effect on the claim that a decrease in insourcing will hurt American's competitiveness. Instead, a change in policy can reverse the effects of insourcing rather than help evaluate the impact of decreased insourcing. E is out of scope.

Thanks,

Chris

[tusharkhatri18]

In this question, the argument says that the cause of this problem is the sharp fall of talent insourcing or drop in enrollment of foreign-born graduate students. The author then provides two claims:
1. The decrease in such insourcing will hurt America’s competitiveness in basic research and applied technology.
2. This will also negatively affect the global outlook and experience of the American students remaining in those programs; they will not have the opportunity to learn about foreign cultures directly from members of those cultures.
The question talks about one claim whereas two claims are provided in the argument. The given correct answer choice is in sync with the second claim. However I prethought in sync with the first one. It is as follows:
Whether the majority of research was carried out by foreign-born graduate students?
Let’s apply variance test on it.
Yes – The majority of research was carried out by foreign-born graduate students, so their decrease will definitely hurt America’s competitiveness in basic research and applied technology.
No – The majority of research was not carried out by foreign-born graduate students, so their decrease won’t affect America’s competitiveness in basic research and applied technology.
Please tell whether my pre-assumed answer choice would also have been correct, if given?

[RaffaeleM39]

The de-internationalization of graduate programs across the country will also negatively affect the global outlook and experience of the American students remaining in those programs; they will not have the opportunity to learn about foreign cultures directly from members of those cultures.

I have read this part as:

The de-internationalization of graduate programs across the country will also negatively affect the global outlook and experience of the American students remaining in those programs BECAUSE they will not have the opportunity to learn about foreign cultures directly from members of those cultures.

Thus I have raised the phrase "they will not have the opportunity to learn about foreign cultures directly from members of those cultures." to the rank of an undisputable premise. Thus I have erased D from the possible answers.

What is wrong with my reasoning?

Can an answer choice question a premise directly?

Or is the bolded part NOT an undisputable premise but something else?

EDIT: question corrected (used "assumption" as a synonym for "premise" incorrectly)

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

The status of the bold-faced part is certainly a premise, but it's more subtle than just an indisputable fact. Any sentence about the future is something of a claim, as there can never be 100% certainty about the future. So, although it is a premise in the argument (it supports the main conclusion), it's a claim that we are free to dispute by the reasoning implied by answer D.