Critical Reasoning

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


Please explian what is the conclusion and how did you picked it in this stimulus

IMO A

P1: 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.
P2: Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.
C1: 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.

In my opinion the first sentence is the conclusion. The second and third sentences describe Pell grants and the importance of their role in society. The first sentence states that, "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy...". This opinion is based on what Pell grants are and why they are important (the second and third sentences).

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?

(A) "Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget." Correct. The passage concludes that the government practiced bad public policy because they reduced the amount of Pell grants. According to the passage, this is bad because Pell grants improve access to higher education for disadvantaged people and without this access the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of the democracy.

This answer states that even though Pell grants have been reduced, total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget. This weakens the conclusion because it suggests that the government is NOT practicing bad public policy as described in the passage.

(B) "The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants." Incorrect. As long as some disadvantaged people are helped by Pell grants the conclusion that reducing Pell grants is bad, holds up. The fact that neediest candidates are not applying for Pell grants doesn't weaken the conclusion.

(C) "Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities." Incorrect. The passage is about increasing access to higher education. After-school programs are irrelevant to this argument.

(D) "On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university." Incorrect. Similar to (B) this information does not weaken the conclusion. As long as access to higher education is improved the conclusion holds. In doesn't matter how much of the cost Pell grants cover.

(E) "Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget" Incorrect. The passage is about access to higher education. This answer discusses education in general.

Thank you @rkanthilal. Good explaination. I missed the conclusion.

Need your Suggestion ? How to imrpove on CR ,my biggest worry of 40% accuracy in CR. I have gone through some material like powerscore CR bible , OG12 and OG11 but still struggling

questions from OG seems commendable but questions from Lsat etc are bit difficult. Suggest thank you

SmarpanGamt wrote:Thank you @rkanthilal. Good explaination. I missed the conclusion.

Need your Suggestion ? How to imrpove on CR ,my biggest worry of 40% accuracy in CR. I have gone through some material like powerscore CR bible , OG12 and OG11 but still struggling

questions from OG seems commendable but questions from Lsat etc are bit difficult. Suggest thank you

On every question you do try coming up with explanations for each answer choice. I think this helps a lot. Try to elaborate on specific reasons why answers are correct or incorrect without relying on phrases such as "out of scope" or "irrelevant".

Hope this helps...

rkanthilal wrote:IMO A

P1: 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.
P2: Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.
C1: 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.

In my opinion the first sentence is the conclusion. The second and third sentences describe Pell grants and the importance of their role in society. The first sentence states that, "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy...". This opinion is based on what Pell grants are and why they are important (the second and third sentences).

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?

(A) "Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget." Correct. The passage concludes that the government practiced bad public policy because they reduced the amount of Pell grants. According to the passage, this is bad because Pell grants improve access to higher education for disadvantaged people and without this access the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of the democracy.

This answer states that even though Pell grants have been reduced, total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget. This weakens the conclusion because it suggests that the government is NOT practicing bad public policy as described in the passage.

(D) "On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university." Incorrect. Similar to (B) this information does not weaken the conclusion. As long as access to higher education is improved the conclusion holds. In doesn't matter how much of the cost Pell grants cover.

How could D be wrong? The conclusion is that since Pell grants dont amount to enough, the gap between rich and poor might increase.
D proves that Pell grants amounts to a very small amount copared to what requires to finish college.

rkanthilal wrote:IMO A

P1: 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.
P2: Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.
C1: 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.

In my opinion the first sentence is the conclusion. The second and third sentences describe Pell grants and the importance of their role in society. The first sentence states that, "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy...". This opinion is based on what Pell grants are and why they are important (the second and third sentences).

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?

(A) "Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget." Correct. The passage concludes that the government practiced bad public policy because they reduced the amount of Pell grants. According to the passage, this is bad because Pell grants improve access to higher education for disadvantaged people and without this access the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of the democracy.

This answer states that even though Pell grants have been reduced, total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget. This weakens the conclusion because it suggests that the government is NOT practicing bad public policy as described in the passage.

(D) "On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university." Incorrect. Similar to (B) this information does not weaken the conclusion. As long as access to higher education is improved the conclusion holds. In doesn't matter how much of the cost Pell grants cover.

How could D be wrong? The conclusion is that since Pell grants dont amount to enough, the gap between rich and poor might increase.
D proves that Pell grants amounts to a very small amount compared to what requires to finish college.

I think it's (A) because the conclusion is Govt is [practicing bad policy, but increasing spending for uplifting of disadvantaged group is not.

(A)..alternate reason

singalong wrote: The conclusion is that since Pell grants dont amount to enough, the gap between rich and poor might increase.

I do not agree with this. In my opinion, the conclusion is that "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".

The support for this conclusion are the premises that "pell grants improve access to higher education for the economically disadvantage" and "without access to higher education, the gap between rich and poor will widen, straining the stability of our democracy".

The author has stated that "Pell grants improve access to higher education". The details of the Pell grants are not relevant to this argument. How much Pell grants improve access to higher education doesn't really matter. The argument is not about the effectiveness of Pell grants.

The author is arguing that Congress is practicing bad public policy because they are reducing access to higher education (by reducing Pell grants). To weaken the conclusion that "Congress is practicing bad public policy" we need to find an answer choice that shows an increase in access to higher education for disadvantaged students. Answer (A) does exactly that.

Hope this helps...