The editor of Metathesis, a new academic journal of literature, manages the peer-review of articles submitted for publication. The journal...

GMAT Multi Source Reasoning : (MSR) Questions

Source: Mock

Multi Source Reasoning

Conditions

EASY

...

Notes

Post a Query

Journal

Review Rules

Reviewers/Authors

The editor of Metathesis, a new academic journal of literature, manages the peer-review of articles submitted for publication. The journal accepts articles focusing on any of three general subject areas: comparative literature, modernist literature, and postcolonial literature.

When an article is submitted, the editor has the article peer-reviewed by exactly three experts, none of whom authored or coauthored the article. The table (see the Reviewers/Authors tab) consists of all the authors or coauthors who have recently submitted articles and all the experts who currently peer-review or have recently peer-reviewed those articles. It also lists the general subject areas for each of the authors and reviewers.

Each author of each submitted article specializes in the general subject area of the article. Moreover, each recently submitted article was peer-reviewed by experts listed in the table.

Ques. 1/3

Suppose that Borsky has recently authored an article that has been peer-reviewed by Metathesis. With this supposition, the information provided does NOT imply that which one of the following is FALSE?

Poundstone was a primary reviewer and Kenyatta the secondary reviewer.

Nichols was a primary reviewer and Kenyatta the secondary reviewer.

Kenyatta was a primary reviewer and Nichols the secondary reviewer.

Nichols was a primary reviewer and Farkas the secondary reviewer.

Poundstone was a primary reviewer and Huang the secondary reviewer.

Solution

OWNING THE DATASET

Understanding Source A: Text Source - Journal Description

Information from Dataset	Analysis
""The editor of Metathesis, a new academic journal of literature, manages the peer-review of articles submitted for publication.""	Metathesis is a recently established academic journal focused on literature A single editor oversees the entire review process Inference: Being ""new"" suggests the journal is still establishing its processes and reputation
""The journal accepts articles focusing on any of three general subject areas: comparative literature, modernist literature, and postcolonial literature.""	The journal has a limited, defined scope Only three literary specializations are accepted Inference: Articles must fit within one of these three categories - no interdisciplinary or other literary fields
""When an article is submitted, the editor has the article peer-reviewed by exactly three experts, none of whom authored or coauthored the article.""	Every article gets exactly 3 reviewers (not 2, not 4) Clear conflict of interest rule: authors can't review their own work Inference: Standard review panel size is fixed at exactly 3 reviewers
""Each author of each submitted article specializes in the general subject area of the article.""	Authors must write in their area of expertise Inference: No cross-disciplinary submissions (e.g., a modernist expert wouldn't submit a postcolonial article)
""Moreover, each recently submitted article was peer-reviewed by experts listed in the table.""	The reviewer pool is limited to those in the referenced table Inference: No external reviewers are used - the table contains all possible reviewers

Summary: Metathesis is a new literary journal with strict rules: it accepts articles in only three subject areas (comparative, modernist, and postcolonial literature), requires exactly three non-author experts to review each submission, and authors must write within their specialization.

Understanding Source B: Text Source - Review Rules

Information from Dataset	Analysis
""Each submitted article must be peer-reviewed by two primary reviewers and one secondary reviewer.""	The 3 reviewers have different roles: 2 primary, 1 secondary This structure is mandatory for all articles Inference: The three-reviewer requirement has a specific 2+1 breakdown Linkage to Source A: This explains how the ""exactly three experts"" from Source A are organized - not just any 3 reviewers, but specifically 2 primary and 1 secondary
""The specialization of the primary reviewers must be in the general subject area of the submitted article.""	Primary reviewers must match the article's field Both primary reviewers need the same specialization Inference: Primary reviewers provide expert evaluation within the field
""The specialization of the secondary reviewer must be in a general subject area different from that of the submitted article.""	Secondary reviewer brings an outside perspective Must be from one of the other two subject areas Inference: This ensures cross-disciplinary input in every review Linkage to Source A: With only three subject areas available, the secondary reviewer must come from one of the two other fields
""None of the reviewers of a submitted article may have the same institutional affiliation as the article's author.""	Prevents institutional bias All three reviewers must work at different universities than the author Inference: This rule requires tracking of institutional affiliations for all participants

Summary: The review process requires a specific structure (2 primary reviewers from the article's field plus 1 secondary reviewer from a different field), with all reviewers coming from different institutions than the author, ensuring both specialized and cross-disciplinary evaluation while avoiding conflicts of interest.

Understanding Source C: Table - Reviewers/Authors

Table Analysis:

The table shows 9 scholars who can serve as both authors and reviewers
Distribution by institution: ABC University (4 scholars), PQR University (3 scholars), XYZ University (2 scholars)
Distribution by specialization: Modernist (4 scholars), Comparative (3 scholars), Postcolonial (2 scholars)
Inference: Modernist literature has the most specialists while postcolonial has the fewest
Inference: Each institution has different coverage - ABC covers all three areas, PQR lacks postcolonial, XYZ lacks comparative

Key Patterns:

Linkage to Source A: These 9 scholars comprise the complete pool for both authoring and reviewing articles in the journal's three subject areas
Linkage to Source B: With only 2 postcolonial specialists total (Farkas and DiNapoli), postcolonial articles face tight constraints - they need exactly 2 primary reviewers, and only 2 exist
Linkage to Source B: ABC University's complete coverage across all three fields makes it valuable for providing secondary reviewers from different fields

Institutional Gaps:

Inference: PQR has no postcolonial specialist, XYZ has no comparative specialist
Linkage to Sources A & B: These gaps mean PQR cannot have postcolonial authors and XYZ cannot have comparative authors (since authors must specialize in their article's field)
Linkage to Source B: These gaps actually help with conflict avoidance - a PQR author writing modernist articles will never face reviewer conflicts with postcolonial specialists from PQR (since none exist)

Summary: The reviewer/author pool consists of 9 scholars across 3 universities with uneven distribution - modernist literature is best resourced while postcolonial operates at minimum viable levels, and institutional gaps in coverage both limit authorship possibilities and ease conflict-of-interest management.

Overall Summary

The Metathesis journal operates a highly structured peer-review system with tight constraints
Each article requires exactly three reviewers (2 primary from the same field, 1 secondary from a different field), all from different institutions than the author
With only 9 total scholars across three universities and three subject areas, the system functions but faces particular pressure for postcolonial articles
Postcolonial articles have only 2 specialists available - exactly meeting the minimum requirement for primary reviewers
The uneven distribution of specialists (4 modernist, 3 comparative, 2 postcolonial) and institutional gaps mean some universities cannot produce authors in certain fields
These same gaps help prevent reviewer conflicts of interest

Question Analysis

In plain terms: Given that Borsky wrote an article for Metathesis, which reviewer combination is NOT definitely ruled out by the constraints?
Key constraints:
- Borsky is the author (PQR University, Modernist specialist)
- Article needs 2 primary reviewers (same field) + 1 secondary reviewer (different field)
- No reviewer can be from author's institution (PQR)
- Double negative: looking for what's NOT FALSE = could be TRUE
Answer type needed: Logical inference - eliminate impossible reviewer combinations

Connecting to Our Passage Analysis

The collated analysis shows reviewer requirements (Source B: 2 primary + 1 secondary, different institutions) and available reviewers by specialization and institution (Source C)
This provides all needed constraints
Can answer from analysis alone: YES - Analysis contains all reviewer rules and specialist availability

Evaluating Relevant Findings

Evaluating each reviewer combination against constraints
Given: Borsky (PQR, Modernist) authored an article requiring 2 modernist primary reviewers + 1 non-modernist secondary reviewer, none from PQR
Goal: Only reviewer combinations avoiding PQR institution and following specialization rules are possible

Statement Evaluations

Statement 1 Analysis

""Poundstone was a primary reviewer and Kenyatta the secondary reviewer.""

Option 1: Poundstone (primary) + Kenyatta (secondary)
Kenyatta is PQR-affiliated (same as Borsky)
No PQR reviewers allowed
FALSE - Kenyatta cannot review

Statement 2 Analysis

""Nichols was a primary reviewer and Kenyatta the secondary reviewer.""

Option 2: Nichols (primary) + Kenyatta (secondary)
Kenyatta is PQR-affiliated (same as Borsky)
No PQR reviewers allowed
FALSE - Kenyatta cannot review

Statement 3 Analysis

""Kenyatta was a primary reviewer and Nichols the secondary reviewer.""

Option 3: Kenyatta (PQR) as primary violates institution rule; Nichols (modernist) as secondary violates specialization rule - FALSE

Statement 4 Analysis

""Nichols was a primary reviewer and Farkas the secondary reviewer.""

Option 4: Nichols (primary) + Farkas (secondary)
Nichols (XYZ, Modernist) + Farkas (ABC, Postcolonial)
Need non-PQR modernist primary + non-PQR non-modernist secondary
COULD BE TRUE - All constraints satisfied

Statement 5 Analysis

""Poundstone was a primary reviewer and Huang the secondary reviewer.""

Option 5: Huang (PQR) as secondary violates institution rule - FALSE

Systematic Checking

Available modernist reviewers for Borsky: Only Nichols (XYZ) and Poundstone (ABC)
Available secondary reviewers: Amaro, Laprade (comparative), DiNapoli, Farkas (postcolonial) - none from PQR
Option 4 is the only combination that doesn't violate any constraint

Final Answer

""Nichols was a primary reviewer and Farkas the secondary reviewer.""

Answer Choices Explained

Poundstone was a primary reviewer and Kenyatta the secondary reviewer.

Nichols was a primary reviewer and Kenyatta the secondary reviewer.

Kenyatta was a primary reviewer and Nichols the secondary reviewer.

Nichols was a primary reviewer and Farkas the secondary reviewer.

Poundstone was a primary reviewer and Huang the secondary reviewer.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...