PT140 · S3 · Q17 Science teacher: In any nation

This is the chain we know. Succ Flourishing excited Good econ → sci comm → young ppl → comm. sci/pub This answer is trying to go backwards from the 4th thing to the 3rd thing. Not only is that an illegal reversal, but it's not even getting the imagined trigger right. What matters is good communication between scientists and the public, not just "if scientists communicate at all".

This is somewhat tempting, because it seems to be connecting the 2nd part to the 3rd part in our chain: Succ Flourishing excited Good econ → sci comm → young ppl → comm. sci/pub But the language of this answer choice is Relative (comparative degrees), whereas the language of the stimulus was Absolute (on/off, yes/no logic). I can say that "For any student, a good personal statement is essential to being accepted to Stanford. For such a personal statement to be good requires that it is generally free of grammar errors." These are true statements in the real world, right? This answer is saying "the extent to which a personal statement is good depends principally on how free of grammar errors it is." That would sound cuckoo in the real world. The fact that avoiding lots of grammar errors is a requirement for a good personal statement doesn't automatically translate into "the quality of a personal statement depends principally on that thing". Similarly, we don't know that the #1 part of having a flourishing scientific community is getting many young people excited. We should also always be wary of any answer choice that seems to only pull support from one claim (this answer seems to only connect to language in the 2nd sentence). The correct answer on Inference questions almost always pulls support from 2 or more claims.

This is somewhat tempting because it seems to be saying that the 1st thing requires the 3rd thing. Succ Flourishing excited Good econ → sci comm → young ppl → comm. sci/pub But the 3rd thing is that "many young people are excited enough to resolve to be pro scientists". This is saying that we need most young people to be excited. That's a much higher bar. It's a true fact to say many Americans were hit by lightning last year, but nowhere near true to say that most Americans were hit by lightning last year.

We only defined necessary preconditions for a successful economy. We have no idea what's required for any successful scientific endeavor. We know what's required for a flourishing national scientific community, and we know what's required for many young people to be excited about future science careers. But neither of those are defining something essential for every single scientific endeavor.