A recent EU research-funding audit examined grants awarded under a competitive excellence programme. The audit found that institutions in three northern Member States received 58 percent of grants by value despite submitting only 34 percent of applications. Institutions in southern and eastern Member States submitted 51 percent of applications but received only 29 percent of grants by value. The audit further noted that the evaluation panels apply uniform scientific-excellence criteria and that no evidence of procedural irregularity was found.
Which of the following is most strongly supported by the audit's findings?
Elige tu respuesta
Explicación
Northern institutions: 58% of grants from 34% of applications = high success rate ratio. Southern/eastern: 29% of grants from 51% of applications = low success rate ratio. Arithmetically, a random application from the north has a higher probability of funding than one from the south/east. This follows directly from the data. Choice A adds an 'implicit bias' explanation that the audit explicitly does not support (no procedural irregularity found). Choice B makes a quality-difference claim the audit does not state—it found no irregularity but did not assert average quality differences. Choice D is an alternative explanation that is speculative and not stated. Choice E is a normative critique not supported by the audit's stated findings.
