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

Redeem

mgmatcr4

Expert replies
by stubbornp » Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:42 pm
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 Jatinder » Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:24 am
IMOA
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:36 am
imo:B

OA??
Join the discussion

by stop@800 » Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:19 am
Join the discussion

by Bidisha800 » Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:28 pm
Sure case of (B)
Drill baby drill !

GMATPowerPrep Test1= 740
GMATPowerPrep Test2= 760
Kaplan Diagnostic Test= 700
Kaplan Test1=600
Kalplan Test2=670
Kalplan Test3=570
Join the discussion

by Jatinder » Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:17 pm
Jatinder wrote:IMOA
Can you please explain B?

Is the staement-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- not the conclusion of the arguemnt?

If Yes, then A directly targets the bold part of the conclusion.
Join the discussion

by stubbornp » Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:54 pm
I also chose B....but Guys,Answers is A...

Reason- Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:42 am Post subject: mgmatcr4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Check the bold part...If policy is bad,It doesnt matter whether needies lack information about their eligibility for such grants...Hope all of you understand...Thanks
Last edited by stubbornp on Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion

by rohangupta83 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:39 am
imo A but with the following logic:

Conclusion: Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

Basically, the argument hints that without Pell grants there is no opportunity for disadvantaged students to attain higher education owing to lack of other programs.

Without what access? - access to programs targeted to provide disadvantaged students access to education.

Choice A states that there are other programs which provide disadvantaged students access to higher education i.e. serve the same purpose as Pell grants. Thus, refuting the original argument/weakening the conclusion.

Moreover, total spending in such programs will increase in the next year's budget.
Join the discussion

by khanshainur » Thu May 12, 2016 11:54 am
I would go with option B as the correct option
Join the discussion