In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid

I am maybe wrong, but the passage says: "a decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance" and "to save money will eventually have to hire".

So, in option B "laying off part-time teachers to save money WILL result in other costs to the school districts" is wrong, it should be MIGHT.


Option C "many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs" seems to be correct.
The passage states that part-time teachers are being laid off to save money. So, if the teacher keeps working as part-tyme teacher, he or she might not get a new job, because part-time teachers are being laid off. In order to get a new job, they will have to became something else, such as tutors or full-time teachers.


--------------------
+KUDOS if I made you think in a different way. Thanks.

I hope "E" is Best.

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
Schools may reduce the no.of lay offs instead of fully.
B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
May be true but not specific.
C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs
Out of scope.
D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
School may retain other teachers.
E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers
It is what clearly mentioned in the argument.

Not really. Generally as in usually, as in it DOES result in a decrease in student performance. Notice the strong language : "To save money WILL HAVE TO hire" . This means additional costs 1000% !


This doesnt attack the conclusion as much. This is steering away from the main point. Concentrate on the fact that laying-off of teachers will lead to schools hiring more tutors (as stated in the argument). This is no way indicates anything about what the teachers' fate will be or how their careers will move fwd.
Hope this makes sense

Exactly like pghai said, E is too extreme. School districts may/may not "save" money. All we know from the question is that schools are firing, but they may have to hire again! Nobody knows if this will result in profilt/loss/breakeven !

I endorse sthittuluri POV
E is the high probable answer: the conclusion says " more tutors.." and w.r.t the laid-off tutors. thus, in worst case even the cost will be same if not lower. The comparison is between no. of tutor laid-off to potential required. Moreover, in option B no where it is mentioned that Laying off will cost other costs. If one refutes the above then pl explain me that in such case, "more tutors" is more w.r.t to whom.

B is the winner. The argument says that there will be costs. E is tempting, but it says that will not save. It can be the case that even if it hire tutors, it will still save $
D can't be, since we do not know the relation between teacher and tutor.

Somehow , are we not assuming here that hiring new tutors will be an additional cost ? Isn't this assumption totally out of scope ?
Option B says - Laying off part time tutors will result in additional cost which is not coming out from the argument at all , somehow I still feel that option E is stronger here . Any comments ?

Hi,

Still torn between B and E.

IMO, B seems right but there's no mention of 'other costs' in the argument and hiring of new tutor may or may not lead to additional costs.

However, option E also may or may not be correct depending on the cost of new hires (read, costlier new tutors).

Can an expert,VeritasKarishma GMATNinja GMATNinjaTWO mikemcgarry egmat & others , please help us on this ?

Posted from my mobile device

It is a toughie but quite reasonable. Here is why:

Premises
- In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid off to save money.
- Decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance.

Conclusion:
Thus, these districts will eventually have to hire more tutors to counteract diminished student performance.
(It is logical to assume that there will be a cost associated with these hires. "Hire" implies "in exchange for money or some such cost". It does not say "volunteers"


A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
No. The author talks about what will happen after the school lays off part time teachers. He doesn't say that schools will not be able to lay off.


B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
Correct. He says that laying off these teachers will eventually lead to hiring tutors (other costs).

C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs
Irrelevant to the argument.

D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
No, the author does not say that schools will re-hire the ones it lays off. He says that firing will lead to hiring of tutors later. Whether same ones will be hired or different, we don't know.

E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers
Not true. The author just says that the activity of firing to save money will lead to other costs later. The school may be able to save money if the tutor-hires are cheaper than the current salary of its part time teachers. The author is not saying that the school will not save money in the whole deal. He is just saying that there will be other costs later.

Answer (B)

HI VeritasKarishma , Hope you are doing well.

I still seem to have a doubt here as I have mentioned earlier , pls let me discern if its correct or not?
In your explanation you've mentioned that for answer option B , hiring new Tutors would be an additional cost , but dont you think that its a strong assumption or a conjecture as question stem says nothing.
Where as answer option E is a direct outcome of the question stem where it clearly states that laying off tutors wont help as the student performance would go down and to counter it , the school will have to hire the tutors again. eventually not being able to save any cost which was the motive in the first place.

Pls share your opinion.

Thanks

Hey Arpitkumar!

Think about it - aren't you guilty of making the same "assumption" in (E) too? You are assuming that there will be no saving so you are assuming that tutors will be paid (a cost). Plus, you are also assuming in (E) that the cost of tutors will be equal to (or even more than) the cost saved by laying off part time teachers.
It is reasonable to think that "hiring a tutor" will have a cost. But is it reasonable to assume that hiring a tutor will have the same cost as that of having a part time teacher?

Hey Arpitkumar!

Think about it - aren't you guilty of making the same "assumption" in (E) too? You are assuming that there will be no saving so you are assuming that tutors will be paid (a cost). Plus, you are also assuming in (E) that the cost of tutors will be equal to (or even more than) the cost saved by laying off part time teachers.
It is reasonable to think that "hiring a tutor" will have a cost. But is it reasonable to assume that hiring a tutor will have the same cost as that of having a part time teacher?[/quote]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Got it now.. Many Thanks VeritasKarishma !!

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.