The number of applications for teaching positions

5.7 percent lower in 1993 than in 1985
5.9 percent lower in 1994 than in 1985.

Despite a steadily growing student population and an increasing number of teacher resignations, Newtown dose not face a teacher shortage in the late 1990

I feel answer is E

OA E

How "E" is the answer ? Isn't "E" contradicting the premise mentioned?

IMO E
as in the premise the percentage of application over no. of position is not mention.

being 40% more than the position avialble it can still be lower than no. of applications in 1985.

IMO - E

Reason as above...

I choose C because i thought if there is shortages in the school due to low application by increasing student teacher ration actually eliminate shortages.

my first reaction was to choose C.
However after reading answer choices carefully again ... i think ans is E

According to C ==> The Newtown school board does not contemplate increasing the ratio of students to teachers in the 1990's
However, stimulus ==> student population is grow while teachers population is decreasing ...

imo E

OA plz

singhag wrote:The number of applications for teaching positions in Newtown's public schools was 5.7
percent lower in 1993 than in 1985 and 5.9 percent lower in 1994 than in 1985. Despite a
steadily growing student population and an increasing number of teacher resignations,
however, Newtown dose not face a teacher shortage in the late 1990's.
Which of the following, if true, would contribute most to an explanation of the apparent
discrepancy above?
A. Many of Newtown's public school students do not graduate from high school.
B. New housing developments planned for Newtown are slated for occupancy in
1997 and are expected to increase the number of elementary school students in
Newtown's public schools by 12 percent.
C. The Newtown school board does not contemplate increasing the ratio of students
to teachers in the 1990's.
D. Teachers' colleges in and near Newtown produced fewer graduates in 1994 than
in 1993.
E. In 1993 Newtown's public schools received 40 percent more applications for
teaching positions than there were positions available.

OA after some discussion

Please recheck before u post
This has been discussed... https://www.beatthegmat.com/newton-publi ... 28530.html

received a pm.

This is a paradox question. The first thing to do in a paradox question is identify the paradox. The paradox is that even though: 1) the rate of teacher applications has gone down, and 2) even though the student pool is growing, and 3) even though teachers are resigning, there is no teacher shortage.

That's the paradox.

Now, we go to the answer choices, looking for a choice that resolves this paradox.

Choice E resolves the paradox because it tells us that even though the rate of teacher applications has gone down, there are still more than enough people applying for teacher positions.

That would explain why there is no teacher shortage.

Testluv wrote:received a pm.

This is a paradox question. The first thing to do in a paradox question is identify the paradox. The paradox is that even though: 1) the rate of teacher applications has gone down, and 2) even though the student pool is growing, and 3) even though teachers are resigning, there is no teacher shortage.

That's the paradox.

Now, we go to the answer choices, looking for a choice that resolves this paradox.

Choice E resolves the paradox because it tells us that even though the rate of teacher applications has gone down, there are still more than enough people applying for teacher positions.

That would explain why there is no teacher shortage.

Thanks for explaining it so clearly...

Testluv wrote:received a pm.

This is a paradox question. The first thing to do in a paradox question is identify the paradox. The paradox is that even though: 1) the rate of teacher applications has gone down, and 2) even though the student pool is growing, and 3) even though teachers are resigning, there is no teacher shortage.

That's the paradox.

Now, we go to the answer choices, looking for a choice that resolves this paradox.

Choice E resolves the paradox because it tells us that even though the rate of teacher applications has gone down, there are still more than enough people applying for teacher positions.

That would explain why there is no teacher shortage.

""""that there is no shortage in "LATE 1993s" , as there were more apps in "1993".. """"

does NOT sound as a great choice .. wat u think ?

""""that there is no shortage in "LATE 1993s" , as there were more apps in "1993".. """"

does NOT sound as a great choice .. wat u think ?

I guess you mean LATE 1990s. Remember in paradox we need to find a choice that is logically capable of resolving the paradox. If they were hired in 1993, then it is not unreasonable that they remain employed as teachers in the late 1990s.

I think there is a problem with this question though. Let's look at the choices:

A. Many of Newtown's public school students do not graduate from high school.
Who cares.

B. New housing developments planned for Newtown are slated for occupancy in
1997 and are expected to increase the number of elementary school students in
Newtown's public schools by 12 percent.
This doesn't resolve the paradox; it makes things worse. Now there's going to be an even bigger shortage of teachers.

C. The Newtown school board does not contemplate increasing the ratio of students
to teachers in the 1990's.
Well too bad for them that they don't contemplate this; it's going to happen regardless because we are told that there is a "growing student population". In order for us to regard this choice as correct, we would have to assume that the "student population" that the text of the passage discusses is referring to some studnet population other than the school's own student population. Real GMAT questions would never expect us to adopt a questionable interpretation of the text, one which would require us to to assume something that wouldn't likely be the speaker's intended meaning in the real world.

D. Teachers' colleges in and near Newtown produced fewer graduates in 1994 than
in 1993.
This doesn't explain why there isn't a teacher shortage; in fact it kind of does the opposite. We are now really wondering why there isn't a teacher shortage. At any rate, the difference between 1993 and 1994 is a red herring. The point is that there are way fewer teachers applying for jobs in '93 and '94 than there were in '85.

E. In 1993 Newtown's public schools received 40 percent more applications for
teaching positions than there were positions available.
Because the other choices are out to lunch, the designer of this question must have intended this to be the correct answer. There is a problem with this choice. However, the problem with this choice doesn't have to do with the discrepancy of the dates; if they hired a surplus of teachers in 1993, it is certainly possible that at least some of them continue to be employed in the late 1990s. Because that is possible, if there were no other problems with this choice, it would certainly be correct. The only problem with this choice, is that we would have to assume that in 1993 they were allowed to or able to hire more teachers than there were positions for teachers.

That's pretty unlikely.

I think that this is a bad question, and I wonder what the source is.

wonderfully explained !
Thanks TestLUV

Testluv,

I still do not understand why C is wrong.

pls, help