sujaysolanki wrote:Finance is imp for schools ..many claim that more money ..better preformance
..But ideas are needed not money ...


Hence we get something in the answer choices that says that more money leads to better education ..will weaken the argument

Option C is out because no where in the argument are they talking about the families of the studentds

Hope this helps ..

Auzbee wrote:For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on financing. Many claim that pouring more money into the public schools will improve student performance. However, the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches. Today the schools are organized to benefit their adult employees rather than the students.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?
A. Schools that have instituted �new approaches� attract the best performing students.
B. Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do.
C. Studies show that student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the students� families.
D. School employees, by an overwhelming margin, said that the system performed well.
E. Researchers in education have shown that students from school districts with high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests.

The OA is E but it does not weaken the conclusion 'the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches'. IMO the right answer should be C as it shows that it is not really new ideas or new approaches that helps improve student's performance.

How do you explain the OA?

diebeatsthegmat wrote:

Auzbee wrote:For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on financing. Many claim that pouring more money into the public schools will improve student performance. However, the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches. Today the schools are organized to benefit their adult employees rather than the students.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?
A. Schools that have instituted �new approaches� attract the best performing students.
B. Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do.
C. Studies show that student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the students� families.
D. School employees, by an overwhelming margin, said that the system performed well.
E. Researchers in education have shown that students from school districts with high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests.

The OA is E but it does not weaken the conclusion 'the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches'. IMO the right answer should be C as it shows that it is not really new ideas or new approaches that helps improve student's performance.

How do you explain the OA?

i do agree that the answer should be E because the student family is out of scope. the passage does tell no words about the student family
E here is good because it says that the more money the school pays for its exployees the better score its students get (high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests. ) it does weaken the conclusion that "Today the schools are organized to benefit their adult employees rather than the students"
it means " well, i benefit the employees and the employee benefit the student so that the students are getting higher and higher performance, watch, the invidence is that the students score are getting higher and higher)