Many high schools send students to special courses to

[A AAPL]

Manhattan Prep

Many high schools send students to special courses to prepare them for language exams. Some language teachers criticize these courses and point out that high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995. The language teachers say that the courses are a waste of time and money.

Which of the following, if true, is the MOST effective challenge to this argument.

A. Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
B. Schools that have sent students to the courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
C. The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
D. The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
E. Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.

OA A

[J Jaykpatel21]

What is the official answer?
IMO it should be A

[BTG Expert Team]

What we see: a Critical Reasoning weaken question. The teachers say the prep courses are a waste because schools that skip them score higher. We need the best reason to doubt that.

Step 1. Find what the teachers' proof rests on.
What we see: schools that do not send students to the courses have scored higher on average since 1995.
What it means: the teachers assume the courses are the only real difference between the two groups of schools. If something else explains the higher scores, the courses could still help.
What we do and why: we look for a choice that gives the non-course schools a different advantage.

Step 2. Check each choice.
The choice that says the non-course schools are the only ones that took the exam before 1995, so they know it better. That is a separate reason for their higher scores. The gap could come from experience, not from skipping the courses. This weakens the argument.
B. Course schools dropped more after 1995 than before. This seems to say things got worse once they started the courses, which if anything supports the teachers. Out.
C. The courses cost more now. The argument is about whether they work, not their price. Out.
D. Assumes the courses are already ineffective. That agrees with the teachers. Out.
E. More students pass overall. Says nothing about which group does better or why. Out.

The trap: B. It mentions scores and 1995, so it looks on point, but it points the wrong way.
Faster way: when an argument compares two groups and blames one difference, the weakener nearly always names another difference between the groups. Scan for it.
Takeaway: "Group A does better than group B, so B's habit is useless" falls apart once you show the groups were different to begin with.

Answer: A