This one is fairly complicated and wordy. The conclusion is that failing to pursue research tends to bias university administrators against appointing people to administrative positions. They say this is true because they have a survey that shows that although professors of biology who teach but do not pursue research made up one-twentieth of all science professors, they were appointed to fewer than one-twentieth of all administrative positions.
Here’s what is wrong with this argument. It could be the lack of research, but it also could be the fact that they’re biology professors. Maybe, the fact that they’re biologists is creating the bias. This is roughly expressed in answer choice (B). If the biologists who do research are also underrepresented, then it’s not the failure to pursue research, but rather the fact that they’re biologists.
(A) is irrelevant. The argument is only discussing scientific administrative positions.
(B) is correct. This implies that it’s something other than a failure to pursue research, and suggests that being a biologist is the real problem.
(C) supports the argument. If biologists in general are not suffering under a bias, then it becomes more likely that the problem is the failure to pursue research.
(D) is irrelevant. This answer tells us why someone would not get into pursuing research, but nothing about a potential bias.
(E) is irrelevant. This argument discusses the percentage of professors who have been appointed, not the percentage of sitting positions that are held by biologists.