Reading skills among high school students in Gotham have been steadily declining, which can only be the result of overcrowding in the schools.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument expressed above?
(A) The high school system in Gotham succeeds in giving students a good education at considerably less cost than do most systems.
(B) Several cities have found that overcrowding in the schools is not always associated with lower reading scores.
(C) Gotham schools have a greater teacher-to-student ratio than most other school systems.
(D) Students' reading skills have not declined in other cities where the high schools are just as crowded as those of Gotham.
(E) Schools are not overcrowded in many cities where high school reading
scores have declined more than they have in Gotham.
OA E
Weaken argument - Kaplan
This topic has expert replies
(D) Students' reading skills have not declined in other cities where the high schools are just as crowded as those of Gotham.
(E) Schools are not overcrowded in many cities where high school reading
scores have declined more than they have in Gotham.
Why is E better than D?
From option E, how can we deduce that reading scores are not declining because of overcrowding?
Okay, its possible that other schools may have different reasons for declining reading scores but that doesn't mean overcrowding can't be one of the reasons for declining scores.
On the contrary, option D, more directly indicates that overcrowding may not be a reason for declining scores.
(E) Schools are not overcrowded in many cities where high school reading
scores have declined more than they have in Gotham.
Why is E better than D?
From option E, how can we deduce that reading scores are not declining because of overcrowding?
Okay, its possible that other schools may have different reasons for declining reading scores but that doesn't mean overcrowding can't be one of the reasons for declining scores.
On the contrary, option D, more directly indicates that overcrowding may not be a reason for declining scores.
- GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:33 pm
To weaken , we need to prove that overcrowding is not the only reason for the decline in reading skills.
i was stuck between D and E
D.
it says, there are other cities which are crowded as Gotham, where the reading skills have not declined. So crowing is not the reason
E.
says in some less crowded places, the reading skills declined. So this says that overcrowding is not the only reason. This weakens the argument by elimination overcrowding as a factor for decline i.e some other reason must be there for decline
Hence i feel E is correct
i was stuck between D and E
D.
it says, there are other cities which are crowded as Gotham, where the reading skills have not declined. So crowing is not the reason
E.
says in some less crowded places, the reading skills declined. So this says that overcrowding is not the only reason. This weakens the argument by elimination overcrowding as a factor for decline i.e some other reason must be there for decline
Hence i feel E is correct
-----------
https://www.collegekart.com
https://www.collegekart.com
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:02 pm
- Thanked: 62 times
- Followed by:6 members
here only is a key word.apex231 wrote:Reading skills among high school students in Gotham have been steadily declining, which can only be the result of overcrowding in the schools.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument expressed above?
(A) The high school system in Gotham succeeds in giving students a good education at considerably less cost than do most systems.
(B) Several cities have found that overcrowding in the schools is not always associated with lower reading scores.
(C) Gotham schools have a greater teacher-to-student ratio than most other school systems.
(D) Students' reading skills have not declined in other cities where the high schools are just as crowded as those of Gotham.
(E) Schools are not overcrowded in many cities where high school reading
scores have declined more than they have in Gotham.
OA E
overcrowding in schools is a necessary condition.
declining of reading skills is its effect.
if a necessary condition doesn't happen, then its effect will not happen.
But the choice E says necessary condition doesn't happen but its effect happened.
Hence it weakens the argument.
if a necessary condition happens, then its effect may or may not happen.
That's why D is wrong, since it is neither strengthening nor weakening the argument.
It is difficult to understand the concept with this example.
I will try to give a simple example.
Stmt: Given a figure,it can be called square, only if it is a rectangle.
here being a rectangle is a necessary condition for being square.
In addition to it, it can have multiple necessary conditions like...it should have all sides equal, all angles 90 degrees etc etc.,
So based on argument, if I say something is rectangle, then it doesn't mean it is a square.
But if we say it is not rectangle, it is not square for sure.
Hope I made some sense
user123321
Just started my preparation
Want to do it right the first time.
Want to do it right the first time.
- tuanquang269
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
- Location: Vietnam
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:5 members