Hey, guys - make sure to actually cite the author. You cited the title of the book. The author is The Princeton Review. The author owns the copyright.

Q: weaken

Arg:
Conc: vouchers promote integration
Premise: parents can select schools --> families can break free of limitations (--> conclusion)

Our task is to find something that weakens the connection between one of the premises and the conclusion. The correct answer will make the conclusion somewhat less likely to be valid (but it will not necessarily invalidate the conclusion).

A) Lower-income families benefit more from vouchers. If this is true, you might argue that this one is either irrelevant to the conclusion or actually strengthens the conclusion. Either way, it doesn't make it less likely that vouchers promote integration.

B) If this is true, then parents won't send their kids far away. Okay, is it necessary to send kids far away in order to promote integration? I have no idea; the argument doesn't talk about that. Could integration still be achieved if the kids stay within 10 miles of home? Sure, possibly. This one isn't looking good.

C) The only people in the argument who have to make decisions are the parents; teachers aren't relevant.

D) This is an odd choice. Assuming schools are allowed to discriminate (which this choice seems to say is the case), then they can presumably continue to discriminate even with the vouchers. The argument doesn't say that the vouchers will change any existing situation of discrimination. I can see what I think they want me to read into this one... but I don't like it.

E) Have not been successful at what? Doesn't mention the goal of "integration." Adjacent counties aren't relevant. Nope.

If I had to choose, I guess I'd choose D.