Critical Reasoning

Reading skills among high school students in Gotham have been steadily declining, which can only be the result of overcrowding in the schools.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument expressed above?

a) The high school system in Gotham succeeds in giving students a good education at considerably less cost than do most systems.

b) Several cities have found that overcrowding in the schools is not always associated with lower reading scores.

c) Gotham schools have a greater teacher-to-students ratio than most other school systems.

d) Students' reading skills have not declined in other cities where the high schools are just as crowded as those of Gotham.

e) Schools are not overcrowded in many cities where high school reading scores have declined more than they have in Gotham.

Guys,
Any idea why B and D are wrong ?
src Kaplan

We can remove B using "always"

But how to differnciate btw D and E??

I am guessing... E is 100% correct and D is 99.9999% correct..

D and E look like good answers.

If you have read the powerscore bible, it will tell you one thing. Even if the question says most seriously weakens the argument, there will only be one argument that actually weakens. This is to ensure there is no ambiguity in questions. And I agree.

With that in mind, I really dunno why D cannot be an answer.

b) Several cities have found that overcrowding in the schools is not always associated with lower reading scores.

d) Students' reading skills have not declined in other cities where the high schools are just as crowded as those of Gotham.

e) Schools are not overcrowded in many cities where high school reading scores have declined more than they have in Gotham.
We have to weaken the conclusion that overcrowding leads to poor reading
The stimulus says that
1)reading skills have declined
2)The reason is overcrowding
We can eliminate E because we don't know how many schools are many . What about the rest of the schools where the scores are poor.
B states that overcrowding does not always lead to poor reading .Overcrowding may sometimes lead to poor reading . Eliminate.

Onell wrote:Reading skills among high school students in Gotham have been steadily declining, which can only be the result of overcrowding in the schools.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument expressed above?

a) The high school system in Gotham succeeds in giving students a good education at considerably less cost than do most systems.

b) Several cities have found that overcrowding in the schools is not always associated with lower reading scores.

c) Gotham schools have a greater teacher-to-students ratio than most other school systems.

d) Students' reading skills have not declined in other cities where the high schools are just as crowded as those of Gotham.

e) Schools are not overcrowded in many cities where high school reading scores have declined more than they have in Gotham.

Guys,
Any idea why B and D are wrong ?
src Kaplan

IMO E
As per option E the cause(overcrowding) is not there but still the effect (reading scores)
AND
As per option B cause(overcrowding) is there, but effect(reading scores) is not there
In a situation like this we should always give preference where cause is not there still we have the same effect - meaning something else is causing the same effect which is a good weakner.
PS - there's post I can't recollect which one in that one of instructors registered in BTG the explained this kind of concept. Thanks!

I stand corrected .

@Onell: An interesting question. Look at the argument carefully.

Reading skills declining (effect) -> can only be the result of overcrowding in the schools. (cause)

Argument is very emphatic and makes a huge cause and effect reasoning y saying that reading skills decline is ONLY because of overcrowding. woww.. this guy beleives no othe thing in the world could lead to reading skills decline . What if there is an another school where reading skills did decline but not because of overcrowding. E is exactly that.

You asked about B and D:

B:

Several cities have found that overcrowding in the schools is not always associated with lower reading scores.

. Look at the bold part.. it leaves the possibility that sometimes it it possible that overwrowding is not the reason for decline in reading skills.

D:

Students' reading skills have not declined in other cities where the high schools are just as crowded as those of Gotham.

Argument gives examples of overcrowded schools where reading skills have not declined. Subtle thing here. This is possible because reading skills decline is the result of overwrwoing and only overwrowding. but it i snot asserted that overcrowding will ALWAYS lead to decline in readling skills.

a tough one .

Onell wrote:Reading skills among high school students in Gotham have been steadily declining, which can only be the result of overcrowding in the schools.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument expressed above?

a) The high school system in Gotham succeeds in giving students a good education at considerably less cost than do most systems.

b) Several cities have found that overcrowding in the schools is not always associated with lower reading scores.

c) Gotham schools have a greater teacher-to-students ratio than most other school systems.

d) Students' reading skills have not declined in other cities where the high schools are just as crowded as those of Gotham.

e) Schools are not overcrowded in many cities where high school reading scores have declined more than they have in Gotham.

Guys,
Any idea why B and D are wrong ?
src Kaplan

Learn to recognize the common flaws.

Premise: There is overcrowding in the schools (not just high schools).
Conclusion: There has been a decline in the reading skills among high school students.
Assumption: The overcrowding in the schools (in general) has caused the declining reading skills among high school students.

The correct answer will break the connection between overcrowding in the schools and declining reading skills among high school students.

Eliminate answers that alter the scope.

B is too broad. The argument is only about high school reading skills. In B, we don't know which schools have the lower reading scores. The scores could be lower because of the students in schools other than high school. Eliminate B.

D reverses the scope. Whereas the argument refers to reading skills among high school students, D refers to reading skills in general; whereas the argument refers to overcrowding in general -- not just in high school -- D refers to overcrowding only in high schools. Eliminate D.

Only answer choice E breaks the connection between overcrowding in general and poor reading skills in high school.

The correct answer is E.

GMATGuruNY wrote:
Learn to recognize the common flaws.

Premise: There is overcrowding in the schools (not just high schools).
Conclusion: There has been a decline in the reading skills among high school students.
Assumption: The overcrowding in the schools (in general) has caused the declining reading skills among high school students.

The correct answer will break the connection between overcrowding in the schools and declining reading skills among high school students.

Eliminate answers that alter the scope.

B is too broad. The argument is only about high school reading skills. In B, we don't know which schools have the lower reading scores. The scores could be lower because of the students in schools other than high school. Eliminate B.

D reverses the scope. Whereas the argument refers to reading skills among high school students, D refers to reading skills in general; whereas the argument refers to overcrowding in general -- not just in high school -- D refers to overcrowding only in high schools. Eliminate D.

Only answer choice E breaks the connection between overcrowding in general and poor reading skills in high school.

The correct answer is E.

Hi Mitch,

This is one of the best explanations I have come across . Subtle change in word can be deciding factor.eg "High school" and school", "overcrowding in general and in high school" etc. I was freaking out why D can't be the right answer. After all, it means cause occurred but effect did n't (weakener). After going through your explanation I know why.

Thanks

Reading skills among high school students in Gotham have been steadily declining, which can only be the result of overcrowding in the schools.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument expressed above?

a) The high school system in Gotham succeeds in giving students a good education at considerably less cost than do most systems.

b) Several cities have found that overcrowding in the schools is not always associated with lower reading scores.

c) Gotham schools have a greater teacher-to-students ratio than most other school systems.

d) Students' reading skills have not declined in other cities where the high schools are just as crowded as those of Gotham.

e) Schools are not overcrowded in many cities where high school reading scores have declined more than they have in Gotham.


The answer choice was really very difficult to find also after the Gmat experts' explanation it felt that it was very simple. Lost between D and E. very good question probably 700 level.

thanks Mitch.