Vargonia schools--I am clueless :(!....

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

Vargonia schools--I am clueless :(!....

by ssgmatter » Fri May 21, 2010 10:24 pm
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia's government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.
B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.
C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia's government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.
D. Teachers in Vargonia's government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.
E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded.
Best-
Amit
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 am
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members

by thephoenix » Fri May 21, 2010 10:34 pm
IMO A
since the stimulus says the ratio has not to be exceded , therfore the schools will have to hire more teachers , thus creating jobs in teching profession
Many of the great achievements of the world were accomplished by tired and discouraged men who kept on working

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:22 am
Followed by:1 members

by gsinghal » Fri May 21, 2010 10:36 pm
IMO B

Reason : When the economy was strong 25% students were going to Private school that charge substantial fees. When the recession comes then they might have to leave the private schools and since govt schools are free students will join govt schools. Now if more students will come in the govt school then govt schools will recruit more teachers to keep their student teacher ratio same as earlier.

wats d OA??

Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Fri May 21, 2010 10:42 pm
Guys I will post the OA later.

I request you guys to explain each of the options in details.

Many thanks!
Best-
Amit

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 11:10 pm

by nvb8181 » Fri May 21, 2010 11:35 pm
IMO ans is D.
As it states "Teachers in Vargonia's government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools". Also the paragraph starts that Vargonia has introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy,".

Hence the demand for teachers in Vargonia's government funded schools is never going to be less because of the pay and legal requirement imposed by state government. This is mentioned in D. :)

Thanks

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Sat May 22, 2010 2:26 am
Received another PM..

Weird one... What's the source?

So the argument goes as follows:
- recessions won't make teaching jobs in the public sector less available because of a recent law
- the recent law states that all children be granted access to education and that the student-teacher ratio be maintained at its current level

A tells us that the student-teacher ratio is higher than it was in the past. However, this is not important to our argument, because the student-teacher ratio cannot change anymore because of the new law. Knowing the student-teacher ratio in the past does not help, since we now know it's a fixed value.

B is probably the best answer choice here. If the private schools are charging significant fess and a recession occurs, then it's reasonable to assume that some parents would give up on private education and transfer their students at public, free schools. If the student-teacher ratio needs to be maintained, then the government will surely have to hire extra teachers.

C is not really helpful, it's just statistics. At most it might go two ways:
- there are more teachers because recessions usually generate more employment for teacher in the public sector - this strengthens the argument
- there are more teachers now than before, so later on they might not hire some again because there are already enough positions filled - this weakens the argument

D is irrelevant, because we are not discussing pay, we are simply discussing the availability of positions.

E is actually a weakening statement: if the government closed some schools, then it might do the same thing in the next recession, which undermines the idea that teaching positions will be available.

Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Sun May 23, 2010 10:08 pm
IMO B

Although B is not filly convincing but it is better than the other choices.