School Financing

This topic has expert replies
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:29 am

School Financing

by sunnyguest » Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:48 am
Hi,

Can anyone help me out on the question below?

Why cant option C be the answer?

================================================


Qn) For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on financing. Many claim that pouring more money into the public schools will improve student performance. However, the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches. Today the schools are organized to benefit their adult employees rather than the students.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

a) Schools that have instituted “new approaches” attract the best performing students.

b) Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do.

c) Studies show that student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the students’ families.

d) School employees, by an overwhelming margin, said that the system performed well.

e) Researchers in education have shown that students from school districts with high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:18 am
Thanked: 5 times
GMAT Score:610

by Jatinder » Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:33 am
What is the source.....spent around 4 min looking @ the question as if iam watching a horror movie

B and C hit the target
C may not be the one as school can't do anything with families
but school definetely can put playground
Keep flying

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:29 am

by sunnyguest » Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:42 am
The answer is "E". It's from MGMAT CAT.

I am wondering how come "C" is wrong as it seems to point out an alternative cause of the the causation / correlation, which may weaken the argument.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:16 pm
Location: Mumbai
Thanked: 11 times

by jimmiejaz » Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:23 am
C is out of scope. Nothing is mentioned about the students families education and it is irrelevant to the argument.
E is correct because, if studies prove that students who come from schools which spend more money on students, score high on standard tests, then indeed schools help students and the argument is weakend that only approach should be to inject new ideas.

hope it helps.
What if i have not yet beat the beast, I know i will beat it!!!!!!!!

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:29 am

by sunnyguest » Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:39 am
Hi,

I agree that option C has not been mentioned in the question.

However, if we can show that there is a correlation / causation with option C, then new ideas will not be the only way to enhance performance, hence weakening the argument.

Pls correct me if I am wrong.

Legendary Member
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:59 am
Location: USA
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:1 members

by niraj_a » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:08 am
guys, its gotta be E

the conclusion is that new approaches, rather than money leads to be better student performance. since we want to weaken, the right answer would support the money spending and would go against new approaches.

C DOES THE OPPOSITE of weaking the argument/conclusion.

B is tempting, but E is better because it directly addresses money spending.

Legendary Member
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
Thanked: 12 times

by nervesofsteel » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:44 am
E should be the answer

C is wrong .....If educating parents will increase the score of Students .. then this can be categorized as a new approach and application of new approach to improve performance of students will only strengthen the conclusion

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 am

by peter.p.81 » Wed May 11, 2016 3:05 am
I am leaning more towards E, but I'm not sure about it.