High School Principal: There is little doubt that extra-curricular act

High School Principal: There is little doubt that extra-curricular activities such as sports teams waste the time students could better spend on academics. Close to half the students in this school barely passed the math and science portions of the graduation exam. Clearly, our attention needs to be refocused. In order to improve our school’s performance on the graduation exam, I propose that we discontinue all school sports beginning next year.

EACH of the following, if true, casts doubt on the principal’s conclusion that discontinuing school sports will improve academics EXCEPT

A)A surplus in last year’s school budget was spent on transportation for the football team rather than on buying a new available edition of the school’s science textbook.

B)Most members of school sports teams were in the half of students that easily passed the graduation exam.
C)The principal does not have a specific plan for re-focusing the school’s resources on academics.
D)The school’s math and science textbooks have been outdated for two years.
E)Even though the principal claims that half the school’s students “barely passed” the graduation exam, they did meet the state’s minimum requirements for graduation.


'C' states book is outdated for two years therefore we need to work on academic more to improve perfomance.
Hence 'C' strengthen the argument rather weaken.
Correct if my reasoning for option 'C' is wrong.

The principal supports that "our attention" (from School pov) needs to be refocused.

A) If the money spent on sports was a surplus, it was not affecting academics. Casts doubt.
B) The principal complains that half of the students did bad because of sports, but this premise clearly contradicts it. Casts doubt.
C) Without a plan, refocusing would serve to no avail. Casts doubt.
D) Correct. The math and science textbooks may be outdated because not enough attention has been put in updating them.
E) Are the Principal's standards different to those of the State? Who is right? Casts doubt.

Almost one month has passed. OA please.

High School Principal: There is little doubt that extra-curricular activities such as sports teams waste the time students could better spend on academics. Close to half the students in this school barely passed the math and science portions of the graduation exam. Clearly, our attention needs to be refocused. In order to improve our school’s performance on the graduation exam, I propose that we discontinue all school sports beginning next year.

EACH of the following, if true, casts doubt on the principal’s conclusion that discontinuing school sports will improve academics EXCEPT

A) A surplus in last year’s school budget was spent on transportation for the football team rather than on buying a new available edition of the school’s science textbook.
B) Most members of school sports teams were in the half of students that easily passed the graduation exam.
C) The principal does not have a specific plan for re-focusing the school’s resources on academics.
D) The school’s math and science textbooks have been outdated for two years.
E) Even though the principal claims that half the school’s students “barely passed” the graduation exam, they did meet the state’s minimum requirements for graduation.

The passage states that extra-curricular activities are a waste of time, hence should be eliminated.

EACH of the following, if true, casts doubt on the principal’s conclusion that discontinuing school sports will improve academics EXCEPT

A) A surplus in last year’s school budget was spent on transportation for the football team rather than on buying a new available edition of the school’s science textbook.
B) Most members of school sports teams were in the half of students that easily passed the graduation exam.

B states that most of the sport team members performed well in the exam, so it seems that the extra curr activities are no cause of bad accademic performance.
If this would be the case, then the players should have not passed or should have performed poorly in the exam, because of extra-curr activities.
The pricipal's conclusion is weakened.

A states that school's resurces were spent on transportation for the football team, hence were subtracted from accademic purposes. This supports the principal's claim that school resurces could be reallocated.
The pricipal's argument "I propose that we discontinue all school sports beginning next year" is NOT weakened by this option.

Hope it's clear

EXCEPT QUESTION-----
In such i follow elimination process....eliminate all weakners........

conclusion- discontinue sports will improve schools education........
weakner-- discontinuing sports will not improve education.....

EACH of the following, if true, casts doubt on the principal’s conclusion that discontinuing school sports will improve academics EXCEPT

A)A surplus in last year’s school budget was spent on transportation for the football team rather than on buying a new available edition of the school’s science textbook....not a weakener as discontinuing sports will improve education by buying new book editions... CORRECT.
B)Most members of school sports teams were in the half of students that easily passed the graduation exam....hence...discontinuing sports will not improve education
C)The principal does not have a specific plan for re-focusing the school’s resources on academics.since he does not have a plan ,discontinuing sports will not improve education
D)The school’s math and science textbooks have been outdated for two years.since outdated books is a reason for poor education, discontinuing sports will not improve education
E)Even though the principal claims that half the school’s students “barely passed” the graduation exam, they did meet the state’s minimum requirements for graduation....hence discontinuing sports will not improve education...it is good anyway


kudos if you please....

I go for E..
This is definitely not a good question..

My perspective on A..The Principal had surplus resources last year & still choose to spend them on the football team rather than on updating books

So this weakens the conclusion " discontinuing school sports will improve academics" as Principal anyways did not choose to prioritize education last year.

Also it does not support the basis for the above conclusion which was: "extra-curricular activities such as sports teams waste the time students could better spend on academics" & not funds

As for E : "Even though the principal claims that half the school’s students “barely passed” the graduation exam, they did meet the state’s minimum requirements for graduation."

E aptly fits because the principal never talked about the students just passing the graduation exams...His intention was clear " to improve our school’s performance on the graduation exam "

So E : "Even though the principal claims that half the school’s students “barely passed” the graduation exam, they did meet the state’s minimum requirements for graduation."
It does not weaken the conclusion (Although it does not strengthen it too)

Screwed my Verbal Test Score

MentorTutoring

Can you pls explain why E is not correct?

Thanks in advance!

Hello again, GDT. I did not see choice (E) as a relevant concern, to be honest. This was a pretty straightforward (A). Notice that the principal wants students to improve their performance on the graduation exam. In choice (E), we cannot say that the requirements for graduation that are mandated by the state are necessarily referring to the test itself. Furthermore, we know nothing about the structure of the exam, other than that it includes math and science portions. Perhaps this is a Verbal-focused exam and the students are passing with flying colors altogether. We simply do not have enough information to qualify (E), but in any case, it cannot be used to answer the question, namely to cast doubt on the principal's conclusion that discontinuing school sports will improve academics.

I hope that helps. If you have further concerns, just ask.

- Andrew

MentorTutoring

My doubt in this question is that we have to find an option that doesn't weaken principal's conclusion as this a Weakens X question, so if E is not correct, then it should be a weakener but I couldn't get how it is a weakener

Thanks in advance!

Rather than get twisted up in logical knots, think of the question this way, GDT:

Which of the following would strengthen the principal's conclusion?

In choice (E), we get a claim by the principal, but the even though framework of the sentence overrides the claim or concern. The students performed just fine, according to state standards. In (A), if extra money had been spent on shuttling the football team around instead of on a newer edition of the school's science textbook--a fact that you will notice falls in line with the principal's concern that many students barely passed the math and science portions of the graduation exam--then the principal's conclusion would be validated, at least in part. (I think curbing the spending on extra-curricular transportation would be a better measure than cutting extra-curriculars altogether, but that is just my view.)

Keep your approach as simple as possible and choose the answer that you find hardest to argue against. (A) is a clear winner of this lot.

- Andrew

Thank you MentorTutoring for the reply

I now get why A is correct because it is strengthening but there is still a doubt as to why B is not weakening

I'm asking this question because I also followed the same approach of finding a strengthener on a Weakens Except question as you've mentioned here but then I read somewhere that what doesn't weaken a statement will not necessarily strengthen it. In fact, it may not affect the conclusion in any way and maybe neutral. So, a better approach is to eliminate all that definitely weaken

I narrowed down to A & E, so was uncertain as to which one to chose

Thanks for your continued help!

Although it is true that what does not weaken a statement does not necessarily strengthen it, I was suggesting a simplified approach for this question because the question stem itself was proving difficult for you to interpret. (This is kind of like the correlation versus causation argument, to which my rebuttal is that although correlation may not mean causation, there certainly cannot be causation without correlation, so correlations are worth examining.) If, by this point, you have read all of the above and you still feel as though (E) is on level ground with (A), then I would suggest letting go of this question and seeing if you can apply a more refined technique to other questions. Or perhaps you could try circling back to this dialogue in another week or so and see if the above posts show you anything more than you can glean right now.

Happy studies.

- Andrew

Hello expert,
I did it correctly, but when I think it further more, I found A and C seems to be the same meaning. As A says ”didn’t buy a new available edition of the school’s science textbook”, this means the textbook is outdated now.
So if C is a weakener, where is A wrong? Could you share some ideas? Thanks in advance.

A little confused by the question--A is not wrong. A is the right answer here, because it is not a weakener. It is possibly a strengthener, and is otherwise not relevant. But A should not be interpreted as a 'weakener.'

And A and C definitely don't mean the same thing. C says 'the principal doesn't have a plan to refocus resources on academics,' which weakens the argument because even if they save money by not spending it on sports, the principal has no plan to then use that money/time to actually improve academics. A says they're spending money on sports instead of updating their science textbooks. Possibly this strengthens the argument (if the new textbook would help). It might be irrelevant to the argument, because we don't know for sure whether the new textbooks matter that much at all. Most students know that new 'editions' of textbooks very often don't add anything of importance.

If perhaps you meant 'D' when you said 'C,' the difference between A and D is that D specifies the old textbooks were actually *outdated* and not just *former editions.* To use the GMAT, if you had any GMAT manual from the last several years, it would be a former edition, but it wouldn't be outdated. An outdated edition would be a GMAT manual from back when the test was paper and pen administered. It would have outdated information for a student to know.

I'll be honest, though, I don't love this question. E, for instance, seems to not weaken the principles argument either. In general I'd presume this question is not an official question and is somewhat poorly formulated.

Thanks for your fast response expert. Yes, sorry I made a typo and I meant D. I think the explanation is a little bit far-fetched though...but anyway I agree this question is not well formulated, so I won’t spend any more time on it.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.