pradeepkaushal9518 wrote:Principal: In each of the past six semesters, School T has cut the biology department's funding. Each time, the biology department chair complained that the cuts would force the department to reduce expenditures on laboratory equipment. However, each semester, only expenditures on field trips and extracurricular science programs were reduced. Therefore, the biology department can implement further cuts without reducing expenditures on laboratory equipment.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the principal's conclusion?

A The biology department has always provided laboratory equipment and textbooks to its students.
B There are sufficient funds currently available for the biology department to offer several extra-curricular programs and field trips.
C The biology department chair supports the funding of expensive field trips.
D The chair of the biology department rarely exaggerates the potential impact of budget cuts on the department's ability to provide laboratory equipment.
E The biology department's estimate for the cost of providing extracurricular programs has not substantially
increased since the last round of budget cuts.

I think it should be D.
B is also a very strong Contender But I think D is better.

pradeepkaushal9518 wrote:Principal: In each of the past six semesters, School T has cut the biology department's funding. Each time, the biology department chair complained that the cuts would force the department to reduce expenditures on laboratory equipment. However, each semester, only expenditures on field trips and extracurricular science programs were reduced. Therefore, the biology department can implement further cuts without reducing expenditures on laboratory equipment.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the principal's conclusion?

A The biology department has always provided laboratory equipment and textbooks to its students.
B There are sufficient funds currently available for the biology department to offer several extra-curricular programs and field trips.
C The biology department chair supports the funding of expensive field trips.
D The chair of the biology department rarely exaggerates the potential impact of budget cuts on the department's ability to provide laboratory equipment.
E The biology department's estimate for the cost of providing extracurricular programs has not substantially increased since the last round of budget cuts.

B is my answer
the problem around if the chair of the biology department rarely exaggerate the impact of budget cuts on the department's ability to provide laboratory equipment, according to me is out of scope....

the principle explain that because the school's budget fund is so enough that it has redundant money to spend on such unnesscessary trips as expenditures on filed trips and extracurricular science programs thus the fund should be cut.... and it could be cut more if the money is still enough to spend on those trips.
since B states that the biology department's fun is still enough to offer several unnesscessary trips, it should still be cut...

Here we agree with each other, Yes B should be right

Same OG question

diebeatsthegmat wrote:

pradeepkaushal9518 wrote:Principal: In each of the past six semesters, School T has cut the biology department's funding. Each time, the biology department chair complained that the cuts would force the department to reduce expenditures on laboratory equipment. However, each semester, only expenditures on field trips and extracurricular science programs were reduced. Therefore, the biology department can implement further cuts without reducing expenditures on laboratory equipment.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the principal's conclusion?

A The biology department has always provided laboratory equipment and textbooks to its students.
B There are sufficient funds currently available for the biology department to offer several extra-curricular programs and field trips.
C The biology department chair supports the funding of expensive field trips.
D The chair of the biology department rarely exaggerates the potential impact of budget cuts on the department's ability to provide laboratory equipment.
E The biology department's estimate for the cost of providing extracurricular programs has not substantially increased since the last round of budget cuts.

B is my answer
the problem around if the chair of the biology department rarely exaggerate the impact of budget cuts on the department's ability to provide laboratory equipment, according to me is out of scope....

the principle explain that because the school's budget fund is so enough that it has redundant money to spend on such unnesscessary trips as expenditures on filed trips and extracurricular science programs thus the fund should be cut.... and it could be cut more if the money is still enough to spend on those trips.
since B states that the biology department's fun is still enough to offer several unnesscessary trips, it should still be cut...

Brother What's the OA?

goyalsau wrote:Brother What's the OA?

knewton

B should be the answer..

If D is true..that means to say bio dep does not give wrong estimates about expenditure, implies principal cannot do any budget cuts for biology dep.

OA plz..

Hello!

Everybody is spot on- choice B is the correct answer. Let's break the question down into its logical components to prove it.

Principal: In each of the past six semesters, School T has cut the biology department's funding. Each time, the biology department chair complained that the cuts would force the department to reduce expenditures on laboratory equipment. However, each semester, only expenditures on field trips and extracurricular science programs were reduced. Therefore, the biology department can implement further cuts without reducing expenditures on laboratory equipment.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the principal's conclusion?

1. There have been repeated biology department budget cuts. (evidence)
2. At least one person expected this to translate into less spending on lab equipment. (chair's hypothesis)
3. Only field trips and extracurriculars saw reduced spending (evidence)
---3a. Lab equipment spending has not been cut. (necessarily true given 3) ---
4. More cuts will not lead to less spending on lab equipment (principal's conclusion, opposite of chair's hypothesis)

Notice that there are really only two pieces of hard evidence (and one inference), and that they can be combined:

1, 3 and 3a: In the past, budget cuts have not led to reduced lab equipment spending, because spending on field trips and extracurriculars has been cut instead.

This statement sets us up perfectly for the correct answer:

There are sufficient funds currently available for the biology department to offer several extra-curricular programs and field trips.

Answer choice B provides an additional piece of evidence that dovetails nicely with the evidence: there is still money for field trips and extracurriculars. That means that it may be possible (as it has been in the past) for lab equipment spending to stay intact, and spending on other biology department costs to be reduced instead.

By the way, is the principal's conclusion DEFINITELY true? Not at all! What if there is $10 left in the field trip/extracurric budget, and the cuts are $10,000? However, on strengthen/weaken questions, we don't have to disprove or prove any conclusions. We just add evidence that strengthens (in this case) or weakens them.

thanks alex for your involvement and explanation

let me clear everybody now i have oas for all knewton vr series questions

oa for this is [spoiler]B
[/spoiler]