Identify Conclusion

Expert replies

gauravgundal: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 199; Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:15 am; Location: India; Thanked: 13 times

by gauravgundal » Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:48 pm

I have finding it hard to understand the correct conclusion of below argument :

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?
[spoiler]A. Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget.
B. The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.
C. Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.
D.On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.
E. Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.[/spoiler]

I can say "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy therefore the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy"

Or

"The gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy therefore The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy"

This question is from Manhattan CAT

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:48 pm

mv12: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 150; Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:19 pm; Thanked: 4 times

by mv12 » Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:19 pm

answer should be B. As the argument emphasized the importance of Pill grants in improving the acccess to grants for disadvantaged students . But B simply rebuked this argument by saying that most neediest students dontt even know their eligibility to receive such kind of grants.

Chandra Gurrum: Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts; Posts: 6; Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:57 am; Location: Bangalore, India; Thanked: 2 times

by Chandra Gurrum » Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:40 pm

IMO: A
The conclusion is "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy".
Reason is, they failed to increase the Pell grants which supports higher education for disadvanted students.

What if, the congress allotted more budget to some other programs that targeted at improving access for disadvantaged students. If this is true, then the conclusion that congress have practised bad public policy is weakened. Option 'A' correctly defines this.

vk_vinayak: Legendary Member; Posts: 502; Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:36 pmFollowed by: 21 members; Thanked: 99 times

by vk_vinayak » Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:19 pm

Here is the explanation from MGMAT staff: https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pos ... html#17125
-----------------------------------------

The conclusion is that current admin has practiced bad policy.

The logic of the argument is:
1. Current admin has weakened pell grants
2. Pell grants provide access to higher ed for disadvantaged
3. Access to higher ed is nec to elevate to middle class
4. Elevation is nec to make democracy stable
5. Therefore, admin has practiced bad policy

I can see why B would definitely be tempting. But it is not as good an answer as A. We are told as fact that "Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances" (stmnt 2 above). So even if the neediest often lack information (as in B), we can still presume that enough people use the grants to make a difference. There is nothing inconsistent about those facts. Therefore, this doesn't weaken the conclusion too seriously.

Choice A weakens it badly. Choice A gives us an alternate route to 3. Once we accept A as true, it no longer matters whether the Pell grants have decreased. The only problem with reducing Pell grants (decreased access to higher ed) is no longer a problem, since access to higher ed will be better funded, not more poorly funded.

- VK

I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)

GMAT/MBA Expert

lunarpower: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 3380; Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 amFollowed by: 1535 members; Thanked: 2256 times; GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:21 am

i received a private message about this thread.

gauravgundal wrote:I can say "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy therefore the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy"

this is backward.

Or

"The gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy therefore The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy"

this is correct.

just ask yourself which statement is the reason for which other statement.
the point of the argument is that the congressional decision is bad public policy because it will cause the gap to widen. (it makes no sense to say that the gap will widen because the decision is bad public policy.) therefore, interpretation #1 is wrong and #2 is right.

analogy:
your decision to leave home at 5 p.m. was a bad one. at that hour, there will be tons of traffic.
same thing going on here.
there will be lots of traffic; therefore, your decision was a bad one --> correct interpretation
your decision was a bad one; therefore, there will be lots of traffic --> nonsense interpretation

Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions Ã Ron en franÃ§ais
Voit esittÃ¤Ã¤ kysymyksiÃ¤ Ron:lle myÃ¶s suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vÃªtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vÃªtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

GMAT Course Reviews

563 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (563 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review