Critical Reasoning

Princeton Review

It is ludicrous to assert that the math department's new policy, allowing the use of nonprogrammable calculators during exams, is discriminatory. Though a calculator can be expensive, and some students will not be able to purchase one, the department is not requiring that students use one, it is only allowing them to do so if they desire. Thus, any student who does not purchase a calculator for use on his exams will not be penalized; he or she will be no worse off at exam time than he or she was prior to the policy change.

To which of the following would the opponents of the math department's new policy be most likely to refer, in an attempt to have the new policy abolished?
A. The difference in speed between a top-of-the-line calculator and a bottom-end one is significant.
B. Each individual student's performance is evaluated against the performance of his or her fellow students on math department exams.
C. The university student services department will make available to all students calculators that can be borrowed as library books are.
D. Much of the math being tested on most of the exams in question is so complex that it requires a calculator-like mind to do the necessary computations.
E. When calculators were not allowed, more than half of all students failed their math exams.

OA B

Option A :- INCORRECT
Quite true, but ordinarily stating the difference in speed between a top of the line calculator and the bottom end is not enough reason to abolish the new policy of the mathematics department.

Option B :- CORRECT
The opponents of the math department's new policy are most likely refer to this option because if the students performance are evaluated against the others and it can prove that the policy does more harm than good, then the policy might be abolished.

Option C :- INCORRECT
Making available to all students calculator, that can be borrowed as library books serves as a temporary solution to help those who cant afford to buy calculator. It cannot help to abolish the maths department new policy because it only put the situation under control, it cannot eradicate the whole problem.

Option D :- INCORRECT
The argument is more concerned with the non compulsory use of calculator that might affect students then a math test that requires calculator like mind to do necessary computations, so this can't be referred to as a means of abolishing the new policy.

Option E :- INCORRECT
Perhaps, but the policy supports the use of calculator, it just happened not to be compulsory and without penalty, so the policy's opponents cannot use this to abolish the policy because it has deviated from the main course of the argument.