(ASSUMPTION) The government is considering legislation...

This is their official explanation:

"Yes. The argument assumes that a lower number of parents will open savings accounts, which will lead directly to less available funding for their children's college costs."

Maybe one of you can enlighten me. I think either A or C would be a much better answer than D. In particular, if A were not assumed the conclusion would seem to fall apart; whereas, D doesn't even match in language (e.g., "many college-bound individuals..." in the stem versus "some parents will not open..." in D).

What do you think?

Gio

Here is why you eliminate A & C:

The passage specifically talks about college savings accounts. In choice A they are talking about regular savings accounts, which are a totally different thing. Just because students rely on parents savings would not mean they rely on college savings accounts. They are two different things, and only 1 of which would be affected by the new law.

C really has nothing to do with the conclusion. The authors assumption is clearly that many parents are opening college savings for their kids only because of the tax benefits and the kids rely on that money. If the tax benefit is gone that will not mean that the kids will just be given the money to do with in their own savings.

With D you have to realize that the author makes two conclusions: 1. Many will have difficulty covering tuition. 2. Some will not be able to attend.

D simply verifies conclusion number 2. In order for some kids to be unable to attend some parents must not open college savings accounts because of the loss of the tax break.

fitzgerald23 wrote:Here is why you eliminate A & C:

The passage specifically talks about college savings accounts. In choice A they are talking about regular savings accounts, which are a totally different thing. Just because students rely on parents savings would not mean they rely on college savings accounts. They are two different things, and only 1 of which would be affected by the new law.

C really has nothing to do with the conclusion. The authors assumption is clearly that many parents are opening college savings for their kids only because of the tax benefits and the kids rely on that money. If the tax benefit is gone that will not mean that the kids will just be given the money to do with in their own savings.

With D you have to realize that the author makes two conclusions: 1. Many will have difficulty covering tuition. 2. Some will not be able to attend.

D simply verifies conclusion number 2. In order for some kids to be unable to attend some parents must not open college savings accounts because of the loss of the tax break.

Thank you for the explanation. Sometimes it helps to return to a CR problem after some time with a refreshed mind. I see now that D makes a more logical underlying assumption that bridges the premises and the conclusion. A and C, like you said, are either irrelevant or not necessarily fatal when you negate them. But, D makes sense as an assumption that the author's making to draw his conclusion.

Thanks,

Gio