Critical Reasoning

@mmslf75:

When we weaken an argument we are finding a choice that makes the conclusion less likely to be true (than it was prior to our reading of that answer choice)--you can take this as the definition of weaken. On the GMAT, by far the most common way an answer choice will do this is by attacking the assumption.

Choice D does neither. Choice D tells you that public schools afford more of these opportunities for college. Does this weaken either of the conclusion or assumption? Nope. Even with these opportunities, we still know from stated evidence in the argument that the fraction of students going on to college is way higher with private schools than it is with public schools. Choice D does not change this.

The argument can be viewed as cause-effect. The author thinks the cause of the discrepancy in college-going rates between the two schools is quality of education. Choice E attacks this assumption by suggesting alternative causation for this effect (ie, that it is by choice rather than quality of education that many public school kids don't go on to college).

Testluv wrote:@mmslf75:

When we weaken an argument we are finding a choice that makes the conclusion less likely to be true (than it was prior to our reading of that answer choice)--you can take this as the definition of weaken. On the GMAT, by far the most common way an answer choice will do this is by attacking the assumption.

Choice D does neither. Choice D tells you that public schools afford more of these opportunities for college. Does this weaken either of the conclusion or assumption? Nope. Even with these opportunities, we still know from stated evidence in the argument that the fraction of students going on to college is way higher with private schools than it is with public schools. Choice D does not change this.

The argument can be viewed as cause-effect. The author thinks the cause of the discrepancy in college-going rates between the two schools is quality of education. Choice E attacks this assumption by suggesting alternative causation for this effect (ie, that it is by choice rather than quality of education that many public school kids don't go on to college).

Oh got it now.. D is not proper

So on GMAT as stated, we generally must hit the ASSUMPTION for weakening..
I forgot all abt the fraction part, u stated above that """Even with these opportunities, we still know from stated evidence in the argument that the fraction of students going on to college is way higher with private schools than it is with public schools.
""""


THANKS

I do agree that D is not a right choice, but E option carries lot of assumptions.

What if you put your kid in public school and they are inclined to go do farming after ? [since 30% of student end up in farming]. How can we say 65 out of 70 end up in college ? It is 65 out of 100. No where in the answer choice does it say that 30% of students who end up in farming is because their parents wanted it. In that case if parents of kids want their kid to be in college, than 65/70 is correct. Otherwise its 65/100.

goyalp wrote:I do agree that D is not a right choice, but E option carries lot of assumptions.

What if you put your kid in public school and they are inclined to go do farming after ? [since 30% of student end up in farming]. How can we say 65 out of 70 end up in college ? It is 65 out of 100. No where in the answer choice does it say that 30% of students who end up in farming is because their parents wanted it. In that case if parents of kids want their kid to be in college, than 65/70 is correct. Otherwise its 65/100.

None of the choices can make "assumptions" because the question stem here is implicitly instructing you to treat the choices as facts. And, in fact, in official GMAT stn/wkn questions, the question stem will ALWAYS explicitly tell you to treat the answer choices as facts (go to the OG and check if you want to!)

A definition of weakening is: a fact that renders the conclusion less likely to be true (than it was prior to knowledge of that fact.)

Could the author still be right in her argument after choice E? Yes, she could because choice E does not completely refute her argument. Does an answer choice have to irrevocably refute an argument in order to rank as a "weakener" against it? Nope. Choice E doesn't kill the argument but, after learning of it, we should now find the conclusion less likely to be true.

In that case, answer choice E could be seen as strenghtening the argument as well. Since public schools are right in rural areas, many kids might be thus inclined to quit studying and get in faming occupations.

I honestly beleive this argument is not well compiled !

But this:

Since public schools are right in rural areas, many kids might be thus inclined to quit studying and get in faming occupations.

is why the argument is weakened, not strengthened! If Choice E is true, then it suggests that by sending kids to private school, they won't necessarily go on to college.

Since public schools are right in rural areas, many kids might be thus inclined to quit studying and get in farming occupations.

This would mean, GO to public school (not private school) = less chances of college, which strengths the conclusion.

goyalp wrote:

Since public schools are right in rural areas, many kids might be thus inclined to quit studying and get in farming occupations.

This would mean, GO to public school (not private school) = less chances of college, which strengths the conclusion.

No, this does not mean GO to public school. And this does not strengthen the argument.

It sounds like you may be misconstruing the conclusion, or else some other part of the argument, or else choice E's impact on the argument.

The conclusion is a recommendation to send kids to private instead of public school (if you want your kid to go on to college). The author is advancing this recommendation because a higher fraction of private school kids go on to college; he is assuming that this discrepancy has to do with the superior education at private schools or some other trait of private schools.

Choice E weakens his argument because it suggests that the reason public school kids are less likely to go on to college doesn't have anything to do with superior education at private school; instead it has to do with their background and choice--that they want to farm instead. If that's true, then putting these kids into private school will not likely increase their odds of going on to college. Hence, choice E clearly weakens the argument, and there is nothing wrong with the design of this question.

In fact, this is a common form of argument--explain the phenomenon or cause of the effect.

The phenomenon: a higher fration of private school kids go on to college (than do public school kids).

The author's explanation: this has something to do with the superiority of private schools and hence he recommends that those parents who want their kids to go on to college improve the odds of this happening by sending them to private school.

The assumption: there are no other explanations for the discrepant rates of college-going for these two groups.

Choice E clearly weakens by opening up the possibility of an alternative explanation.

Choice E weakens his argument because it suggests that the reason public school kids are less likely to go on to college doesn't have anything to do with superior education at private school; instead it has to do with their background and choice--that they want to farm instead.

Nowhere does it say that the background of the kids influence their decision. They just mentioned that there are farms and farm occupations are available in that area. The possibility is that all kids of public school are from non-farmland.

I can see what you are trying to say and can very easily convince myself with your reasoning. But if I was to see this question for first time, I will always find ambiguity in the argument.

But I do take your point for similar problems in general. Thanks for the detailed replies.

goyalp wrote:

Choice E weakens his argument because it suggests that the reason public school kids are less likely to go on to college doesn't have anything to do with superior education at private school; instead it has to do with their background and choice--that they want to farm instead.

Nowhere does it say that the background of the kids influence their decision. They just mentioned that there are farms and farm occupations are available in that area. The possibility is that all kids of public school are from non-farmland.

I can see what you are trying to say and can very easily convince myself with your reasoning. But if I was to see this question for first time, I will always find ambiguity in the argument.

But I do take your point for similar problems in general. Thanks for the detailed replies.

No problem.

To be clear, what I meant by "background" was precisely the fact that they are in rural areas--as in geographic or demographic background.

And, again, to be clear, the argument, although tricky, is certainly not flawed or ambiguous in design.