alivapriyada wrote:The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?

Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget.

The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.

Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.

On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.

Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.

A: Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget.

B: The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.

C: Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.

D: On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.

E: Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.

alivapriyada wrote:The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?

Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget.

The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.

Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.

On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.

Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.[/quote

taake a look at this link, hun
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/vie ... &view=next

uwhusky wrote:I would go with D.

Premise: Congress have practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants.

Premise: Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances.

Subconclusion: Pell grants help recipients to elevate themselves to the middle class.

Conclusion: Without access to Pell grants, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

A: Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget.

The budget could increase by .000001% and still satisfy above statement. Could be a contender, but I would consider this a bait.

B: The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.

This statement supports the conclusion more so than weakens.

C: Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.

Out of scope, the focus is on Pell grants.

D: On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.

The answer I like the most. If Pell grants only covers 15% of the cost, then allowing more students to have access to Pell grants won't necessarily help them because the other 85% is probably just as costly as 100%.

E: Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.

Statement is out of scope, the focus is on Pell grants. The increased spending on education could go toward kindergarten/pre-school, and such increase would have no effect on the argument/conclusion.

BlindVision wrote:Over a week now and still no OA. This is another reason that an OA should be in the spoiler.

goyalsau wrote:

BlindVision wrote:Over a week now and still no OA. This is another reason that an OA should be in the spoiler.

I really makes sense if you know what is the official answer, So that you can at least compare your answer and reasoning, Otherwise after a long time when OA comes out . You almost forget why i choose that answer???