Last year SSc got only 3% of the Govt's budget for research.
Sharp reductions have been imposed on SSc programs this year.

Conclusion: They seem to be dictated by social philosophy, not financial constraints.

The argument is saying that only 3% money was allocated to SSc last year and this year there has been a sharp reduction. It seems that SSc is not considered important and that is why the reduction (not because money is less)
The argument relies on assuming that 3% allocation shows that SSc is not considered important.
Option (E) tells us that.

(A) The government funds allocated for research in the social and behavioral sciences are not sufficient for the work that needs to be done.

The argument does not deal with whether the amount of money is sufficient or not.

(B) The social and behavioral sciences are as valuable as the physical and biological sciences.

Again, the argument does not deal with whether SSc are as valuable as other sciences. It just talks about the value of SSc.

(C) The current reductions will stop research in the social and behavioral sciences.

The argument doesn't assume that the reduction will stop research. It just deals with the motive behind reduction this year by the Govt.

(D) Government funding is the primary source of research money in the United States.

Again, not relevant. Whether Govt funding is the primary source or there are other sources, the argument doesn't discuss. It just deals with the motive behind reduction this year by the Govt.

Answer (E)

Last year, support for the social and behavioral sciences represented only about three percent of the government's total budget for research funds in the United States. Thus, the particularly sharp reductions imposed on such programs this year seem dictated not by financial constraints but by social philosophy.

This particularly reduction indicates we CAN do it. And IF we can do it means the impact on the overall budget is NOT critical.

Moreover, the blue part, tells us that the reduction is ALSO not related to financial motivations. Turns out, the reduction is not critical to the budget.

turns out, its impact is negligible.

E is the best option. This is a GREAT question. It seems conceived just for those who go for business programs.

Thanks for the cogent explanation. Turns out I completely misconstrued the comprehension. It indeed was a great question. I think the main key here was understanding what exactly the conclusion is. A clear understanding of the conclusion would've eliminated almost all the wrong options.

See these sir.

I will complete them soon but they are already a lot of notions

1. GRE Passage Paragraph Argument (CR) - Introduction
2. GRE Passage Paragraph Argument (CR) - Characteristics of an Argument Passage
3. GRE Passage Paragraph Argument (CR) - The Process to Answer The Questions
4. GRE Passage Paragraph Argument (CR) - Must Be True/Inference/Conclusion Questions
5. GRE Passage Paragraph Argument (CR) - Weaken Questions

Last year, support for the social and behavioral sciences represented only about three percent of the government's total budget for research funds in the United States. Thus, the particularly sharp reductions imposed on such programs this year seem dictated not by financial constraints but by social philosophy.

Meaning - Govt has budget , But they think the two sciences mentioned arent worth receiving any funds.

So E.

Hello from the GRE Prep Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GRE Prep Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.