Critical Reasoning

The education offered by junior colleges just after the Second World War had a tremendous practical effect on family-run businesses throughout the country. After learning new methods of marketing, finance, and accounting, the sons and daughters of merchants returned home, often to increase significantly the size of the family's enterprise or in other ways, to maximize the profits.

Which of the following statements is best supported by the information above?

A) The junior colleges principally emphasized methods of increasing the size of small businesses.
B) The business methods taught in the junior colleges were already widespread before the second World War.
C) The business curricula at junior colleges did not include theoretical principles of management.
D) Without the influence of junior colleges, many family-run businesses would have been abandoned as unprofitable.
E) Business methods in many post-war family-run businesses changed significantly as a result of the junior colleges.


[spoiler]

The OA is E, now i cannot get around it... how? D and E look equally close.[/spoiler]

Our stimulus tells us the junior college courses had an effect. To have an effect, they must have been used. Therefore the answer is E.

Try the denial test. If business methods didn't change as a result of courses, then the courses had no effect. if denying an assumption kills the argument then the assumption was necessary.

arora007 wrote:The education offered by junior colleges just after the Second World War had a tremendous practical effect on family-run businesses throughout the country. After learning new methods of marketing, finance, and accounting, the sons and daughters of merchants returned home, often to increase significantly the size of the family's enterprise or in other ways, to maximize the profits.

Which of the following statements is best supported by the information above?

A) The junior colleges principally emphasized methods of increasing the size of small businesses.
B) The business methods taught in the junior colleges were already widespread before the second World War.
C) The business curricula at junior colleges did not include theoretical principles of management.
D) Without the influence of junior colleges, many family-run businesses would have been abandoned as unprofitable.
E) Business methods in many post-war family-run businesses changed significantly as a result of the junior colleges.


[spoiler]

The OA is E, now i cannot get around it... how? D and E look equally close.[/spoiler]

IMO E is the best answer, explanation option a) can be negated as it only talks about small business, i mean the teaching methodology might also help the big family run businesses. similarly we can negate option B and C, lets see at option D it says many family - run businesses would have been abandoned as unprofitable without the influence of junior see this is a far- stretch conclusion, i mean no where in the stimulus it has been mentioned that family run businesses are going through tough times, they might still be survive though not making large profits.!!

Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:Our stimulus tells us the junior college courses had an effect. To have an effect, they must have been used. Therefore the answer is E.

Try the denial test. If business methods didn't change as a result of courses, then the courses had no effect. if denying an assumption kills the argument then the assumption was necessary.

I agree with @Tani.
Choice D: Uses extreme words. As @manpsingh87 says, no one knows whether or not they would have been unprofitable. Without the junior colleges, many businesses might have just been breaking even.
Choice E: A very acceptable one. In other words, rephrases the conclusion. Both the language, meaning and intent work in favor of the conclusion.

Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:Our stimulus tells us the junior college courses had an effect. To have an effect, they must have been used. Therefore the answer is E.

Try the denial test. If business methods didn't change as a result of courses, then the courses had no effect. if denying an assumption kills the argument then the assumption was necessary.

But Tani this is an Inference question and not an Assumption Question

The answer still has to follow logically from the stimulus. If students don't change their actions based on the courses, the courses cannot have an effect.

Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:The answer still has to follow logically from the stimulus. If students don't change their actions based on the courses, the courses cannot have an effect.

So Tani can we employ this method for Inferences in General .I can see u need to take the conclusion into consideration for this.What if the Stimulus is Just a Bunch of Facts.

Generally, when the stimulus is a bunch of facts, you are looking for a conclusion that can be validly drawn from those facts. Always keep the basic equation of arguments in mind when you are dealing with LSAT
Evidence + assumptions = conclusion