Critical Reasoning

Hello All,

I do see the question in multiple threads in BTG but still can't find any explanation for my query. Please Help.

Toughened hiring standards have not been the primary cause of the present staffing shortage in public
schools. The shortage of teachers is primarily caused by the fact that in recent years teachers have not experienced any improvements in working conditions and their salaries have not kept pace with salaries in other professions.

Which of the following, if true, would most support the claims above?

A. Many teachers already in the profession would not have been hired under the new hiring standards.
B. Today more teachers are entering the profession with a higher educational level than in the past.
C. Some teachers have cited higher standards for hiring as a reason for the current staffing shortage.
D. Many teachers have cited low pay and lack of professional freedom as reasons for their leaving the
profession.
E. Many prospective teachers have cited the new hiring standards as a reason for not entering the profession.

Ans is D and I agree with the answer. We should be able to prove the answer from the given stimulus and we can do that for D.

My Query: how about option C.

C. Some teachers have cited higher standards for hiring as a reason for the current staffing shortage.

Content: Toughened hiring standards have not been the primary cause of the present staffing shortage in public schools. We can infer that it is one of the cause but not the primary cause. Having said that, it is possible for some teachers to cite that - higher standards for hiring as a reason for the current staffing shortage.

There is something wrong with C because it's not the correct answer. Need help to improve my way of understanding.

Thanks

Brent@GMATPrepNow wrote:This is a cause and effect argument. What is the cause of the staffing shortage?
Paraphrased argument: Toughened hiring standards is NOT the cause. The cause is unsatisfactory salaries and working conditions.

The question stem asks us to identify a premise that supports the conclusion. In other words, we're looking for something that strengthens the conclusion that unsatisfactory salaries and working conditions are the cause of the staffing shortage.

D. Many teachers have cited low pay and lack of professional freedom as reasons for their leaving the profession.
Great - this supports the conclusion that unsatisfactory salaries and working conditions are the cause of the staffing shortage.

C. Some teachers have cited higher standards for hiring as a reason for the current staffing shortage.
This does not support the conclusion that unsatisfactory salaries and working conditions are the cause of the staffing shortage. In fact, this weakens the conclusion by suggesting that toughened hiring standards IS the cause.

Cheers,
Brent

EDIT.

EDIT

Hi Verbal Experts,
Could any of you please clarify my following doubts -

1. In this ARGUMENT, it appears that Statement 1 is the conclusion. Statement 2 is the premise which supports the conclusion. Right ?

2. Can you please shed some light on option A and B ? (I think, one issue in BOTH of these options is that the ASPECT of staffing shortage appears to be missing from these two options and thus they become IRRELEVANT.)

3. Can we say that Option B seems to weaken the argument (if at all it affects the conclusion) ?

Look forward to your analysis. Thanks in advance!

Hi Verbal Experts - any update on my above doubts ?

Looking forward to your explanations. Much thanks in advance!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Verbal Experts - any update on my above doubts ?

Looking forward to your explanations. Much thanks in advance!

1. In this ARGUMENT, it appears that Statement 1 is the conclusion. Statement 2 is the premise which supports the conclusion. Right ?

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but I think it would be more precise to say that the second sentence contains the premise, rather to say that the second sentence is the premise. If it were an established fact that poor conditions/salaries caused the staffing shortage, there'd be nothing for us to do! Rather the premise is simply that working conditions haven't improved and salaries haven't kept pace with other professions. Positing that these variables caused the staffing shortage is refining the conclusion.

2. Can you please shed some light on option A and B ? (I think, one issue in BOTH of these options is that the ASPECT of staffing shortage appears to be missing from these two options and thus they become IRRELEVANT.)

B is irrelevant - it sheds no light on the cause of the staffing shortage. Teachers could have a higher educational level and still be dissuaded by poor working conditions/low salary. Or one could argue that if they've already invested so much time and money on their education, they're passionate about teaching and would endure less than ideal conditions to follow this passion. We don't know.

A, if anything, is a weakener, because it supports a claim we're attempting to disprove. We're trying to show that new standards are NOT the cause of the staffing shortage. 'A' either suggests that new standards are curtailing hiring - if the current applicant pool contains teachers with similar credentials to those already teaching, they wouldn't be hired. Or 'A' is irrelevant - if the current applicant pool has markedly different credentials, than it's not helpful to know what would have happened to the teachers who have already been hired. Either way, it's no good.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote: A, if anything, is a strengthener. We're trying to show that new standards are NOT the cause of the staffing shortage. 'A' either suggests that new standards are curtailing hiring - if the current applicant pool contains teachers with similar credentials to those already teaching, they wouldn't be hired. Or 'A' is irrelevant - if the current applicant pool has markedly different credentials, than it's not helpful to know what would have happened to the teachers who have already been hired. Either way, it's no good.

Hi Dave - I got you on the rest of the reply,however, on the above quote didn't get it clear!

Hi Dave - I got you on the rest of the reply,however, on the above quote didn't get it clear!

I could have been clearer here. I was trying to show that you could eliminate A for multiple reasons.

You could argue that 1) It's irrelevant. The argument is about the cause of the current staffing shortage. Whether active teachers would have been hired if they were applying for jobs now doesn't matter. They're already in the workforce.

Or 2) it strengthens the claim that the new hiring standards are the culprit, and thus weakens the argument that poor conditions/pay have led to the shortage. (I did not make this clear in my original post. I'll edit it.) If we assume that the credentials of teachers haven't changed much over time (a questionable assumption in its own right) then the fact that many current teachers wouldn't have been hired under the new standards means that many aspiring teachers, who would have qualified under the old standards, will no longer qualify to teach. If this were true, then the new standards could be the culprit for the staffing shortage, a scenario that we're trying to disprove. The goal is to show that working conditions and inadequate pay are the problem.