nasheen wrote: I will provide OA later

The number of students assigned to special "disruptive behavior" classes in a school district has dropped by 55% over the past decade. The district superintendent gives all the credit for the decrease to teachers for providing better discipline and guidance in appropriate classroom etiquette to the students.

The school district superintendent's reasoning is most called into question by which of the following, if true?

A)Other school districts have begun to run "disruptive behavior" classes in the past year as well. ( we dont care of " other school districts" we only care of why the number of student decreased so out of state

B)Students who are in the "disruptive behavior" classes have approximately the same number of detentions annually as students not enrolled in the classes. " out"

C)Over the past decade, students who previously would have been classified as "disruptive" have increasingly been diagnosed instead as having Attention Deficit Disorder, and have been medicated to control that condition. ( nope, it doesnt talk about diagnosing"

D)Disruptive behavior in the school district, when it does happen now, is less extreme than it used to be. my choice

E)Classes for "disruptive behavior" are a state-sanctioned method for controlling students who pose disciplinary challenges. ( Irrelevant)

i choose A

A)Other school districts have begun to run "disruptive behavior" classes in the past year as well.
we are only concerned about this school

B)Students who are in the "disruptive behavior" classes have approximately the same number of detentions annually as students not enrolled in the classes.
argument does not mention "detention" and hence we do not know what effect does this statistic has on argument. moreover we are not concerned about other students

C)Over the past decade, students who previously would have been classified as "disruptive" have increasingly been diagnosed instead as having Attention Deficit Disorder, and have been medicated to control that condition.
Provides alternative reason for the decrease in the % of students in disruptive behavior classes and hence weakens the conclusion that credits teachers for the decrease in %

D)Disruptive behavior in the school district, when it does happen now, is less extreme than it used to be.
we are not concerned about the "extreme-ness" of disruptive behavior

E)Classes for "disruptive behavior" are a state-sanctioned method for controlling students who pose disciplinary challenges.
this one has no effect on argument. whosoever proposed/started the method is irrelevant

nasheen wrote:The number of students assigned to special "disruptive behavior" classes in a school district has dropped by 55% over the past decade. The district superintendent gives all the credit for the decrease to teachers for providing better discipline and guidance in appropriate classroom etiquette to the students.

The school district superintendent's reasoning is most called into question by which of the following, if true?

A)Other school districts have begun to run "disruptive behavior" classes in the past year as well.

B)Students who are in the "disruptive behavior" classes have approximately the same number of detentions annually as students not enrolled in the classes.

C)Over the past decade, students who previously would have been classified as "disruptive" have increasingly been diagnosed instead as having Attention Deficit Disorder, and have been medicated to control that condition.

D)Disruptive behavior in the school district, when it does happen now, is less extreme than it used to be.

E)Classes for "disruptive behavior" are a state-sanctioned method for controlling students who pose disciplinary challenges.

I will provide OA later

Situation: The number of students assigned to special "disruptive behavior" classes has dropped. The DS says it is because teachers have provided better guidance and discipline to the students.

How to weaken his argument? One of the ways is to show alternative cause for decrease in the numbers. C does just that.

C says that the number of students has decreased NOT because of teachers' guidance, but rather because of changed categorization. The students who'd have been categorized as 'disruptive students' are now being categorized as students with some disorder and are given medical treatments.

Another vote for C!

X causes Y is the conclusion

option specifying anything other than X causing Y, - weakens the argument

C does the job

teachers methods are not causing decreased numbers.
instead disorder is causing the decreased numbers,

OA: C

Gotta be C. Providing an alternative explanation (medication) for the result (fewer "disruptive" students) is one of the classic ways to weaken a conclusion.