Spending on education - weaken the conclusion

[Pdgmat2010]

It's time we stopped searching for new statistics to suggest that we are not spending enough on education. In fact, education spending increased 30 percent overall during the last decade.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

(A) Despite increased spending on education, enrollment in our elementary and secondary schools declined about 4 percent during the last ten years.
(B) Our spending on gasoline increased more than 100 percent during the last decade.
(C) When adjusted for inflation, our per-pupil expenditure on education this year is less than it was ten years ago.
(D) Eleven other economically developed nations spend more on education than we do.
(E) The achievement levels of our students have been declining steadily since 1960, and the last decade produced no reversal in this trend.

My analysis:
A. decrease in enrollment does not have any bearing on how much was spent on education
B.out of scope
C. my answer
D. out of scope
E. out of scope

OA is A
kindly explain

[hardik.jadeja]

It's time we stopped searching for new statistics to suggest that we are not spending enough on education. In fact, education spending increased 30 percent overall during the last decade.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

(A) Despite increased spending on education, enrollment in our elementary and secondary schools declined about 4 percent during the last ten years.
(B) Our spending on gasoline increased more than 100 percent during the last decade.
(C) When adjusted for inflation, our per-pupil expenditure on education this year is less than it was ten years ago.
(D) Eleven other economically developed nations spend more on education than we do.
(E) The achievement levels of our students have been declining steadily since 1960, and the last decade produced no reversal in this trend.

My analysis:
A. decrease in enrollment does not have any bearing on how much was spent on education
B.out of scope
C. my answer
D. out of scope
E. out of scope

OA is A
kindly explain

What is the source of your answers?

This post says that the answer is C.
https://www.pagalguy.com/forum/gmat-and- ... ost1626368

[Pdgmat2010]

I read your link.
Nowhere is it mentioned that C is the OA ( I would like it to be C as C is my answer as well).

It just has a list of questions answered by someone and HE has written what he feels are the answers.

Source : 1000CR

OA : A

[hardik.jadeja]

I read your link.
Nowhere is it mentioned that C is the OA ( I would like it to be C as C is my answer as well).

It just has a list of questions answered by someone and HE has written what he feels are the answers.

Source : 1000CR

OA : A

I said that because the guy who posted the question agreed that the answers given in the post above his are correct.

Just to let you know that 1000CR document has lot of incorrect answers.

[nikhilkatira]

I read your link.
Nowhere is it mentioned that C is the OA ( I would like it to be C as C is my answer as well).

It just has a list of questions answered by someone and HE has written what he feels are the answers.

Source : 1000CR

OA : A

I said that because the guy who posted the question agreed that the answers given in the post above his are correct.

Just to let you know that 1000CR document has lot of incorrect answers.

Many experts say 1000cr is not a good source.

[selango]

The argument clearly deals with spending on education.

Option A tell us about the enrollment that has no bearing on education;Out of scope

[reply2spg]

I clearly see that A is the answer....how can it be out of scope?

let's say that 100 students are enrolled and $100.00 are spent in all.....this is 100%.

Now as per A enrollment is declined by 4% in last 10 years. For easy calculation I will say that enrollment is declined by 50% in last 10 years. Means total 50 students are enrolled but money spent is same i.e. $100.00 and here you see that spent money is doubled i.e. 200%....

By above example it is clear that though the spending is as it is or declined, it is still showing that spending is more because enrollment is declined and this is our answer.

C should not be correct answer, because it talks about per-pupil, which is out of scope. Also, it is considering average amount spent since it is adjusted. In that case there may be some ppl who sent more money, some spent less and some spent none. With option C nobody can tell whether money spent is more or less

The argument clearly deals with spending on education.

Option A tell us about the enrollment that has no bearing on education;Out of scope

[selango]

reply2spg,

as per ur example,if there decline in number of students increase the amount of money spent,then it strengthen the argument.

In order to weaken the argument,we need to prove education spending is not increased

[reply2spg]

I am agree with your "In order to weaken the argument,we need to prove education spending is not increased" statement...But I don't see where you are thinking that I have increased the amount of money spent....I am saying the money spent is still as it is.....If you decline the amount to $80.00 then also it is more than 100%

reply2spg,

as per ur example,if there decline in number of students increase the amount of money spent,then it strengthen the argument.

In order to weaken the argument,we need to prove education spending is not increased

[selango]

How can you say that same amount of money spent?

Option A states that despite increased on spending, enrollment is declined.

It means that since the last decade there is increase on spending.

[sk818020]

Like the others, I would have to take issue with the OA.

The argument simply restated;

Arguments that say we are not spending enough on education are incorrect because we have increased education spending 30% over the last decade.

(A) says that although we have increased spending, enrollment is down. How does this weaken the argument above? For (A) to be correct we would have to assume that, in some way, enrollment can indirectly tell us something about educational spending. More directly the assumption would be that the more you spend on education the higher enrollment should be. This is not stated in the argument though. In fact, the argument tells us nothing about what enrollment means as far as educational spending.

I hope this makes sense.

Thanks,

Jared

[adityagupta104]

but the question is about whether the amount of spending is enough/adequate or not, by concluding that it has reduced from its past value doesnt mean that its not enough, what if we were over spending earlier, i dont agree with any of the options but A seems closer to the answer to me.

[akashkumar1987]

I think the answer will be C

1) Spending s increased
2) Correct

[prismleadindia]

Answer is c