School supritendent

[dv2020]

School superintendent: It is a sad fact that, until now, entry into the academically best high school in our district has been restricted to the children of people who were wealthy enough to pay the high tuition. Parents who were previously denied the option of sending their children to this school now have this option since I am replacing the tuition requirement with a requirement that allows only those who live in the neighbourhood of the school to attend.
The superintendent's claim about the effect of replacing the tuition requirement relies on the assumption that
(A) the residents of the school's neighbourhood tend to be wealthy
(B) people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are able to live in the neighbourhood of the school.
(C) people less wealthy than those who were able to pay the old tuition are in the majority in the district.
(D) there are no high schools in the district other than the one referred to by the superintendent.
(E) there are many people not wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition who wish to have their children attend the school.


OA is B

[g.shankaran]

School superintendent: It is a sad fact that, until now, entry into the academically best high school in our district has been restricted to the children of people who were wealthy enough to pay the high tuition. Parents who were previously denied the option of sending their children to this school now have this option since I am replacing the tuition requirement with a requirement that allows only those who live in the neighbourhood of the school to attend.
The superintendent's claim about the effect of replacing the tuition requirement relies on the assumption that
(A) the residents of the school's neighbourhood tend to be wealthy
(B) people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are able to live in the neighbourhood of the school.
(C) people less wealthy than those who were able to pay the old tuition are in the majority in the district.
(D) there are no high schools in the district other than the one referred to by the superintendent.
(E) there are many people not wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition who wish to have their children attend the school.

IMO B

[itsmebharat]

IMO B, please share OA and if possible, explanations as well.

[cans]

IMO B
a) if neighbourhood has wealthy residents, then there will be almost no effect of new requirement.
b) if people not enough wealthy live in neighbourhood, then only they can send their children to school and thus requirement will have effect
c) they should be in majority of neighbourhood and not in district
d) irrelevant
e) but we don't know if they reside in neighbourhood or not.

[HSPA]

+1 for B in 2.17sec.. Not that easy one.. but a good one... similar to those on actual test.

[Brent@GMATPrepNow]

The negation method works here as well.

The superintendent's argument is that, by changing the entrance requirement from having the tuition to living in the neighborhood, the "poor" students will no longer be denied access to the school.

If we negate B, we are essentially saying that no "poor" students live in the neighborhood of the school. This means that the "poor" students will still be denied access to the school.

Since the negated statement kills the superintendent's argument, it must be the correct answer.

Cheers,
Brent

[galaxian]

Could you plz explain how we negate & identify ? Like how Negating C wont work in this case ?

[vikram4689]

1:26 min. IMO B

@galaxian
(B) people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are able to live in the neighbourhood of the school.
Negation of B: poor people are NOT able to live nearby

Therefore changing the requirement would have NO effect.

(C) people less wealthy than those who were able to pay the old tuition are in the majority in the district.
Negation of C: less wealthy people are NOT in majority in the district. OR less wealthy people are in minority in the district.

But this is make the conclusion FALL on its KNEES because even if a minority section is benefited then changing the requirement is good.

Negation should always make the conclusion FALL on its KNEES as it is in B.

Hope it helps
[/spoiler]

[cans]

Could you plz explain how we negate & identify ? Like how Negating C wont work in this case ?

(C) people less wealthy than those who were able to pay the old tuition are in the majority in the district.

majority of district doesn't mean majority of neighbourhood. Maybe none of them is in neighbourhood and thus tuition requirement won't have any effect at all.