BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

The current administration and Congress

Expert replies
by alivapriyada » Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:56 am
The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?

Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget.

The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.

Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.

On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.

Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by thevoid » Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:06 pm
alivapriyada wrote:The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?

Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget.

The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.

Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.

On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.

Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.
Hey,
nice question,
Conclusion - the last lines of the argument, gap bw rich and poor.......
Premise - access to higher education thru Pell Grant decreases the gap, the Gap bw rich and poor ,
Stem Asks to Weaken the Conclusion,
Paraphrase - Prove that there are other similar grants available
Option A - BINGO, dats wat we want....
Option B - doesnt help to weaken the method to bridge the gap ...
Option C - program in urban communities doesnt bridge the gap
Option D - questions utility of Pell Grant, not required
Option E - seems an option but spending on education as a whole is talked, not about the higher education which is our contention in the argument.
Join the discussion

by uwhusky » Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:12 pm
I would go with D.

Premise: Congress have practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants.

Premise: Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances.

Subconclusion: Pell grants help recipients to elevate themselves to the middle class.

Conclusion: Without access to Pell grants, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.
A: Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget.
The budget could increase by .000001% and still satisfy above statement. Could be a contender, but I would consider this a bait.
B: The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.
This statement supports the conclusion more so than weakens.
C: Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.
Out of scope, the focus is on Pell grants.
D: On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.
The answer I like the most. If Pell grants only covers 15% of the cost, then allowing more students to have access to Pell grants won't necessarily help them because the other 85% is probably just as costly as 100%.
E: Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.
Statement is out of scope, the focus is on Pell grants. The increased spending on education could go toward kindergarten/pre-school, and such increase would have no effect on the argument/conclusion.
Yep.
Join the discussion

by goyalsau » Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:16 pm
I Would like to go with B ,
B says Its not that budget is not less but infect Candidates Lack information for their eligibility .

Aliva What's the OA?
Saurabh Goyal
[email protected]
-------------------------


EveryBody Wants to Win But Nobody wants to prepare for Win.
Join the discussion

by diebeatsthegmat » Tue Sep 28, 2010 6:34 am
alivapriyada wrote:The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?

Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget.

The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.

Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.

On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.

Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.[/quote

taake a look at this link, hun
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/vie ... &view=next
Join the discussion

by g000fy » Tue Sep 28, 2010 6:54 am
uwhusky wrote:I would go with D.

Premise: Congress have practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants.

Premise: Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances.

Subconclusion: Pell grants help recipients to elevate themselves to the middle class.

Conclusion: Without access to Pell grants, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.
A: Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget.
The budget could increase by .000001% and still satisfy above statement. Could be a contender, but I would consider this a bait.
B: The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.
This statement supports the conclusion more so than weakens.
C: Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.
Out of scope, the focus is on Pell grants.
D: On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.
The answer I like the most. If Pell grants only covers 15% of the cost, then allowing more students to have access to Pell grants won't necessarily help them because the other 85% is probably just as costly as 100%.
E: Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.
Statement is out of scope, the focus is on Pell grants. The increased spending on education could go toward kindergarten/pre-school, and such increase would have no effect on the argument/conclusion.
Conclusion IMO is - The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy

And so, A is the best choice.
Join the discussion

by lilisanei » Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:17 am
I think the correct answer is D:

This option weakens the conclusion by mentioning that the amount of Grant that is only 15% of total expenses, would not be helpful in decreasing the current Gap between rich and poor students.
Join the discussion

by BlindVision » Sun Oct 03, 2010 3:51 pm
Over a week now and still no OA. This is another reason that an OA should be in the spoiler.
Life is a Test
Join the discussion

by ov25 » Sun Oct 03, 2010 4:00 pm
I am with goyalsau...B

if the neediest do know have access to these funds anyway...increasing these might not necessarily help! --> weakens
Join the discussion

by this_time_i_will » Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:09 pm
I would like to as supporters of A that why A can not be considered Out Of Scope.
The argument talks about Pell grants, while A talks about total spending.
Please note that the conclusion is: The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants , and not because they failed to increase total spending on education for disadvantaged studets.
Join the discussion

by goyalsau » Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:57 pm
BlindVision wrote:Over a week now and still no OA. This is another reason that an OA should be in the spoiler.
I really makes sense if you know what is the official answer, So that you can at least compare your answer and reasoning, Otherwise after a long time when OA comes out . You almost forget why i choose that answer???
Saurabh Goyal
[email protected]
-------------------------


EveryBody Wants to Win But Nobody wants to prepare for Win.
Join the discussion

by BlindVision » Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:09 pm
My OA = A

I was stuck on either choice A or D.

Although I felt they both weaken the argument, I ruled out the other choice because four-year college or university was not mentioned but disadvantaged students was mentioned.
Life is a Test
Join the discussion

by BlindVision » Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:15 pm
goyalsau wrote:
BlindVision wrote:Over a week now and still no OA. This is another reason that an OA should be in the spoiler.
I really makes sense if you know what is the official answer, So that you can at least compare your answer and reasoning, Otherwise after a long time when OA comes out . You almost forget why i choose that answer???
You are absolutely correct, 100%! :D
Life is a Test
Join the discussion

by lokesh r » Mon Oct 04, 2010 6:31 am
I agree with goyalsau's answer and reasoning.

IMO B.

OA plzzzz..?
Join the discussion

by smackmartine » Fri May 13, 2011 10:38 pm
Source is 700_800 Practice questions

OA A

Experts, can you please explain why B is incorrect ?
Join the discussion