|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 508
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
50
[0], given: 66
|
Many high schools send students to special courses to [#permalink]
 16 Sep 2010, 11:17
Question Stats:
61% (02:36) correct
38% (01:33) wrong based on 0 sessions
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 176
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
56
[1] , given: 25
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
We need to find a fact which would weaken the language teachers argument that the courses are a waste of time and money. 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. These do not weaken the argument. e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent. This does not explicitly mention that the increase in passing was due to the special courses. 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. Since the schools which do not send students to special courses were the only ones who participated in the exams prior to 1995 they had better knowledge of the exams and hence had a higher average score. This weakens the argument. So A is the correct answer.
_________________
Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.
Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 420
Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
75
[0], given: 50
|
suyashjhawar wrote: 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. I am confused with the OA given here. Option A - Seems to corroborate with the argument. Option B - Corroborates with the argument. Option C - Irrelevant. Option D - Irrelevant. Option E - Although it is not very convincing, it is the best bet of all the options. Any other thoughts???
_________________
 Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 457
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
36
[0], given: 5
|
Can some one please shed more light on this
_________________
GGG (Gym / GMAT / Girl) -- Be Serious
Its your duty to post OA afterwards; some one must be waiting for that...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 508
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
50
[0], given: 66
|
siyer wrote: We need to find a fact which would weaken the language teachers argument that the courses are a waste of time and money.
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.
These do not weaken the argument.
e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.
This does not explicitly mention that the increase in passing was due to the special courses.
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.
Since the schools which do not send students to special courses were the only ones who participated in the exams prior to 1995 they had better knowledge of the exams and hence had a higher average score. This weakens the argument. So A is the correct answer. Good explanation.Kudos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 420
Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
75
[0], given: 50
|
siyer wrote: We need to find a fact which would weaken the language teachers argument that the courses are a waste of time and money.
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.
These do not weaken the argument.
e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.
This does not explicitly mention that the increase in passing was due to the special courses.
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.
Since the schools which do not send students to special courses were the only ones who participated in the exams prior to 1995 they had better knowledge of the exams and hence had a higher average score. This weakens the argument. So A is the correct answer. I am still confused.  Help me understand this clearly. The argument notes that a) language courses are a waste of time. b) high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do [highlight]since 1995[/highlight]. The highlighted text - [highlight]since 1995[/highlight] means on or after 1995. Now option A talks of prior to 1995 and also talks of students not attending the courses but still having better knowledge of the exams thus supporting the argument that the courses are a waste of time. Isn't option A just supporting whatever is presented in the stimulus???
_________________
Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 176
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
56
[0], given: 25
|
Quote: The argument notes that a) language courses are a waste of time. b) high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995. The highlighted text - since 1995 means on or after 1995.
Now option A talks of prior to 1995 and also talks of students not attending the courses but still having better knowledge of the exams thus supporting the argument that the courses are a waste of time. Isn't option A just supporting whatever is presented in the stimulus??? The students who do not attend the special courses are in the schools who have prior knowledge of the exams. So the schools help them with their exams whereas students from the other schools do not have that advantage and hence attend special courses. So the special courses would be a waste of time only for the students of those schools who had participated in the exams prior to 1995. For the students of other schools, it would not be a waste of time.
_________________
Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.
Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 226
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 11
|
A it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Status: Upset about the verbal score - SC, CR and RC are going to be my friend
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 319
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 6
|
ezhilkumarank wrote: siyer wrote: We need to find a fact which would weaken the language teachers argument that the courses are a waste of time and money.
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.
These do not weaken the argument.
e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.
This does not explicitly mention that the increase in passing was due to the special courses.
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.
Since the schools which do not send students to special courses were the only ones who participated in the exams prior to 1995 they had better knowledge of the exams and hence had a higher average score. This weakens the argument. So A is the correct answer. I am still confused. Help me understand this clearly. The argument notes that a) language courses are a waste of time. b) high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do [highlight]since 1995[/highlight]. The highlighted text - [highlight]since 1995[/highlight] means on or after 1995. Now option A talks of prior to 1995 and also talks of students not attending the courses but still having better knowledge of the exams thus supporting the argument that the courses are a waste of time. Isn't option A just supporting whatever is presented in the stimulus??? A for me too. This answer weakens by saying the schools, which did not send students for special courses already has knowledge on the exam to prepare the students well.
_________________
My gmat story
MGMAT1 - 630 Q44V32
MGMAT2 - 650 Q41V38
MGMAT3 - 680 Q44V37
GMATPrep1 - 660 Q49V31
Knewton1 - 550 Q40V27
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 138
Schools: Wharton,Insead,LBS,IMD,Kellog,Haas,Duke
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 13
|
A for me although m confused between the two options A and E 2.20 min........... 
_________________
Whatever you do, Do it SINCERELY!!!
GOD help those who help themselves....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 447
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 112
|
I pick A ...though I marked this by POE !! did somehow did not understand how other choices are related to the argument !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Affiliations: NCC,SAE,YHIA
Joined: 04 May 2010
Posts: 52
Location: Mumbai , India
WE 1: 3 years international sales & mktg-projects
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 2
|
In this weaken question we have to contest the conclusion that special courses are waste of time and money. Option that provides information about the benefits of the course is winner. 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. Hence the schools who report better scores without sending the students to special courses had benefited from the courses earlier, therefore other schools that are sending the students to the special courses now will benefit from the courses.
_________________
Sun Tzu-Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 45
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 8
|
no doubt, it has to be "A"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 188
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
45
[0], given: 11
|
had to go with A as other options do not weaken the argument at all.
A talks about before 1995 when the schools which do not send the students to the courses are the only one which participated in the exams, but it does not have any reference to post 1995
But the other options are irrelevant. So picked A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
