Critical Reasoning

Hi All,

[spoiler]In the following powerscore CR bible question OA = A. Can someone please tell why not D ?[/spoiler]

======================================================================
High school students who feel that they are not succeeding in high school often drop out before graduating and go to work. Last year, however, the city's high school dropout rate was significantly lower than the previous year's rate. This is encouraging evidence that the program instituted two years ago to improve the morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.

Which one of the following if true about the last year, most seriously weakens the argument ?

a) There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city.
b) The morale of students who dropped out of high school had been low even before they reached high school.
c) As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out.
d) High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employment.
e) The antidropout program was primarily aimed at improving students' morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates.

D says that officials are helping graduates. But in the argument we are concerned about dropouts. Dropouts have not become graduates yet..

Hope that helps..

kyabe wrote:D says that officials are helping graduates. But in the argument we are concerned about dropouts. Dropouts have not become graduates yet..

Hope that helps..

Let's say I am a high school student(just like any B-school one). If I see that school is making efforts to make sure that students are placed...they wouldn't I drop my idea of leaving the school in between....

In that case it will weaken.

Kindly tell what is the flaw in the above school of thought.

High school students who feel that they are not succeeding in high school often drop out before graduating and go to work. Last year, however, the city's high school dropout rate was significantly lower than the previous year's rate. This is encouraging evidence that the program instituted two years ago to improve the morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.

Which one of the following if true about the last year, most seriously weakens the argument ?

Find the other possibilities besides the program. That might explain the dropout, not because of the program that school institutes.

a) There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city. Yes, because of unemployment rate, high school students remain in school, not drop out. This weakens the argument.

b) The morale of students who dropped out of high school had been low even before they reached high school.
This seems strengthen the argument.
c) As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out.
this is no bearing.

d) High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employment. graduates? we are talking about current students.out of scope.

e) The antidropout program was primarily aimed at improving students' morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates.This seems to streghten the argument.

I agree that A is correct.

D is wring because they are not talking about their graduates. They are talking High school students.

I could not understood that why E is wrong? what could be the explanation?

akhp77,

I think you have doubt bcoz option E indicates that the program primarily focused only on school with high dropout rates.

The question asks you to weaken the argument.
Reduction of dropout -->based on program to improve the morale of students.

But option E does not weaken the argument;it supports the argument.
If its true the program will be instituted only in school where dropout is high,so that dropout can be considerably reduced.