|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 170
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
21
[0], given: 5
|
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: I disagree. SravnaTestPrep wrote: Let us analyze choice A. It says that the current student-teacher ratio is higher now at government funded schools than it was during the last recession. Let us assume the current period to be a period of stronger economy. A higher student-teacher ratio during the current period means that during the last recession period there were less students who attended the government funded schools. It cannot be more teachers because till now during recession, jobs were cut down.
We don't know what was the scenario during recession last time. Perhaps the demography was such that there were fewer kids leading to higher student-teacher ratios. Perhaps there were more teachers in the system and with declining demand, the number of teachers in the system has decreased which has increased the student-teacher ratio. There are n number of possibilities. Nothing is given that links last recession with the current scenario. What you are given is the current scenario and what you can expect in the next recession. So choice (A) is out of scope. SravnaTestPrep wrote: Choice B in my opinion is not as solid because it doesn't automatically imply that the students who were studying at private schools during stronger economy would join the government funded schools during recession because as mentioned above there are two factors that weigh in students decision, being quality of education and cost of education. So if the private schools were markedly higher in the quality of education that they offer we would see little number of students moving to government funded schools during recession.
So to me choice A appears to strengthen the argument better. Again, quality of education is out of scope here. There are a dozen other factors parents weigh while selecting a school but none of the others are relevant to our argument. The argument only deals with cost and student-teacher ratio. Option B very clearly states that during strong times, many kids are attending private schools which charge substantial fees. Also, since it is given that jobs are harder to come by in recession, it is possible that some people might be forced to use free-of-cost govt schools. Let us first agree that during recession the number of teachers is lower than during a period of strong economy. The argument is based on that fact. Let us also use the common sense logic that the number of kids going to school is not going to vary significantly from one year to another within a short period. So considering all the n number of possibilities we can reasonably reach the above conclusion. So there is the cost factor and n number of other factors. If during recession the n number of factors weighed more or equally in favor of the private schools as in a period of strong economy, then the cost factor is being overlooked and therefore there are enough well to do parents who can send their kids to private schools during recession. Your argument that since parents would be out of job and so don't send their kids to private schools is not strong. This is because during previous recession also as we can infer, the parents did not change their kids from private schools to government funded schools because of cost. So if the number of kids going to private schools is 25% during strong economy it was also about the same during the recession. While choice B considers only the cost factor, choice A implies that the other factors are important and along with the cost factor will strengthen the argument even strongly. In fact in the case of choice B, cost factor may be pitted against the other factors.
_________________
Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com
Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1083
Followers: 512
Kudos [?]:
1063
[0], given: 131
|
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]
 01 Feb 2013, 01:35
eybrj2 wrote: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.
B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.
C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.
D. Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.
E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded. Hi, As I see, already there are two experts active on this thread, I am not sure if I am going to add much value to the discussion. But let me try. When I read this passage, one thing that struck me was the underlined part: "However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools". So, the conclusion is not talking about the next recession or one particular recession; it is about all recessions to come. Therefore, any option statement which only talks about just one or two recessions is not going to support the general trend predicted in the conclusion. The correct option has to give pointers to all the future recessions or provide a trend that has been generally followed in the past, which we can assume to hold in the future also. Eliminate options A, C and E right awayTherefore, when I went to the options with this understanding in mind, I could easily eliminate options A, C and E since these three options just compare two economic recession - I am looking for a trend. Option D is so out of context. Option B is what I am looking for. It talks about "recent periods", not one period but a number of periods. So, it is talking about a trend. Now, what is the trend? The trend is that in strong economic conditions, a large number of children study in private schools, which charge "substantial fees". So, we can easily assume that the number of students at public schools will not decrease; it should rather increase. Therefore, the job availability of teaching jobs will likely not reduce. Hope this helps  Thanks, Chiranjeev
_________________
Free trial:Click here to start free trial (100+ free practice questions)
Free Session (May 25): : Learn how to master Sentence Correction. Click here to attend.
   
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 170
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
21
[0], given: 5
|
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]
01 Feb 2013, 02:14
egmat wrote: eybrj2 wrote: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.
B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.
C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.
D. Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.
E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded. Hi, As I see, already there are two experts active on this thread, I am not sure if I am going to add much value to the discussion. But let me try. When I read this passage, one thing that struck me was the underlined part: "However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools". So, the conclusion is not talking about the next recession or one particular recession; it is about all recessions to come. Therefore, any option statement which only talks about just one or two recessions is not going to support the general trend predicted in the conclusion. The correct option has to give pointers to all the future recessions or provide a trend that has been generally followed in the past, which we can assume to hold in the future also. Eliminate options A, C and E right awayTherefore, when I went to the options with this understanding in mind, I could easily eliminate options A, C and E since these three options just compare two economic recession - I am looking for a trend. Option D is so out of context. Option B is what I am looking for. It talks about "recent periods", not one period but a number of periods. So, it is talking about a trend. Now, what is the trend? The trend is that in strong economic conditions, a large number of children study in private schools, which charge "substantial fees". So, we can easily assume that the number of students at public schools will not decrease; it should rather increase. Therefore, the job availability of teaching jobs will likely not reduce. Hope this helps Thanks, Chiranjeev Something that strengthens the argument should add useful additional knowledge other than what is common sense knowledge. In my opinion choice B offers no useful additional information because if there are private schools some parents would indeed send their children to the private schools and cost is indeed generally a factor. This is common sense knowledge just as the knowledge that public schools charge lower fees. Anyway the fact that 25% of students in recent periods have always attended private schools during strong economic period may mean two things: 1) They never left the private school during recession 2) All who left during recession to the public schools returned to the private schools after recession. In the second case, cost factor would have weighed in. In the first case, factors other than cost would have weighed in. How can you decide which one is stronger?
_________________
Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com
Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1083
Followers: 512
Kudos [?]:
1063
[0], given: 131
|
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]
01 Feb 2013, 02:58
SravnaTestPrep wrote: Something that strengthens the argument should add useful additional knowledge other than what is common sense knowledge. In my opinion choice B offers no useful additional information because if there are private schools some parents would indeed send their children to the private schools and cost is indeed generally a factor. This is common sense knowledge just as the knowledge that public schools charge lower fees. I think here we are moving in an area where a number of students have doubts. The area is "what is common sense knowledge". Well, I am not going into what is considered common sense in GMAT, generally; however, within the given context option B is certainly not a common sense knowledge. Just because there are some private schools, would some parents always send their children to them, even if: - the public education is completely free -private schools charge substantial fees -recession is going on And again option B doesn't only say 'some' children go to private schools, it says "25%" of the children, which means 1 in every 4 children, which is substantial given that public education is free and private schools charge "substantial fees". Can we consider above information as common sense? I think not. SravnaTestPrep wrote: Anyway the fact that 25% of students in recent periods have always attended private schools during strong economic period may mean two things:
1) They never left the private school during recession
2) All who left during recession to the public schools returned to the private schools after recession.
In the second case, cost factor would have weighed in. In the first case, factors other than cost would have weighed in. How can you decide which one is stronger? I would say a case between these two extremes is more probable i.e. where some students move from private schools to govt. funded schools. You are right that it's hard to support one case over the other. The most probable case would be somewhere in between. This case would strengthen our conclusion - because for more students, more teachers would need to be hired. Hope this helps. Thanks, Chiranjeev
_________________
Free trial:Click here to start free trial (100+ free practice questions)
Free Session (May 25): : Learn how to master Sentence Correction. Click here to attend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 170
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
21
[0], given: 5
|
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]
01 Feb 2013, 06:00
egmat wrote: SravnaTestPrep wrote: Something that strengthens the argument should add useful additional knowledge other than what is common sense knowledge. In my opinion choice B offers no useful additional information because if there are private schools some parents would indeed send their children to the private schools and cost is indeed generally a factor. This is common sense knowledge just as the knowledge that public schools charge lower fees. I think here we are moving in an area where a number of students have doubts. The area is "what is common sense knowledge". Well, I am not going into what is considered common sense in GMAT, generally; however, within the given context option B is certainly not a common sense knowledge. Just because there are some private schools, would some parents always send their children to them, even if: - the public education is completely free -private schools charge substantial fees -recession is going on And again option B doesn't only say 'some' children go to private schools, it says "25%" of the children, which means 1 in every 4 children, which is substantial given that public education is free and private schools charge "substantial fees". Can we consider above information as common sense? I think not. SravnaTestPrep wrote: Anyway the fact that 25% of students in recent periods have always attended private schools during strong economic period may mean two things:
1) They never left the private school during recession
2) All who left during recession to the public schools returned to the private schools after recession.
In the second case, cost factor would have weighed in. In the first case, factors other than cost would have weighed in. How can you decide which one is stronger? I would say a case between these two extremes is more probable i.e. where some students move from private schools to govt. funded schools. You are right that it's hard to support one case over the other. The most probable case would be somewhere in between. This case would strengthen our conclusion - because for more students, more teachers would need to be hired. Hope this helps. Thanks, Chiranjeev Dear Chiranjeev, The reality is that parents do send their kids to private schools. We do know that private schools charge substantial fees. Also we are talking about a period when the economy is strong. Regarding choice B, I mentioned the two scenarios because they fit the information given in that choice that each year about the same percentage of students go to the private schools during a strong economy. You cannot choose something in between because that would not be reflecting the truth given in choice B. As a matter of fact the first case I mentioned in my previous post would actually weaken the argument.
_________________
Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com
Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic
[#permalink]
01 Feb 2013, 06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar
Topics:
|
 |
|
|
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic
|
marine |
7 |
23 Sep 2004, 16:43 |
 |
|
|
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic
|
nocilis |
24 |
10 Mar 2005, 23:18 |
|
|
|
|
In general , jobs are harder to get in times of economic
|
src |
3 |
06 Aug 2005, 20:46 |
|
|
|
|
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic
|
nakib77 |
9 |
24 Dec 2005, 00:57 |
|
|
|
|
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic
|
mymba99 |
6 |
24 May 2008, 08:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
