Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that student-teacher

Hi Rohan,

Let me try to address your doubt.

In all argument questions, it is very important to understand the conclusion very thoroughly. Let's look at the conclusion here:

Therefore, though most employment opportunities contract in economic recessions, getting a teaching job in Vargonia's government-funded schools will not be made more difficult by a recession.

Pay attention to the key words here: "more" and "not difficult"

"More" implies we are making a comparison. Comparison of what? Comparison of two time periods - recession and normal periods.
"Not difficult" means that job opportunities per applicant will not decrease during the recession. It does not mean that it will rise during the recession. So, anything which suggests that opportunities will not rise during recession is not a weakener because the conclusion is not talking about increase in opportunities.

However, anything that suggests that opportunities will decrease during the recession is a valid weakener.

Now, let's look at option C:

(C) What the current student-teacher ratio in Vargonia's government-funded schools is?

As your rightly observed, if the teacher-student ratio is very low, then the schools may not need to hire during the recession. But does that weaken the conclusion? Does this mean that the job opportunities will decline during recession? The answer is No. If the ratio is low, then the schools don't have requirement both in the normal and the recessionary periods. So, there is no decline in opportunities during recession. In case of low ratio, it would only mean that opportunities may not rise during recession; however, that would not weaken the argument as we understood before.

Now, let's look at option B:

(B) Whether the number of qualified applicants for teaching positions in government-funded schools increases significantly during economic recessions

This option specifically creates a difference between normal and recession periods. It says that during recessions, the number of applicants for teaching positions increases significantly. So, even if new jobs are created because of additional students, it may not make the job easier to get since the number of applicants has also increased. So, even if the supply of jobs increases, it will not make job easier to get because the demand would also increase.

Does this help?

Thank you.
Chiranjeev

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Argument Evaluation

Situation
During a recession, the number of children in government-funded schools in Vargonia tends to increase. Vargonian children are entitled to a free education in these schools. A new law requires student-teacher ratios in these schools to remain below a certain limit.

Reasoning
Which of the five questions would provide us with the best information for evaluating the argument? The argument's conclusion is that recessions do not make teaching jobs in Vargonia's government-funded schools harder to get. During recessions, the reasoning goes, more students will enroll in Vargonia's government-funded schools than in nonrecession times. Implicit in the argument is the thought that, because the new law sets an upper limit on the average number of students per teacher, schools that get an influx of new students would have to hire more teachers. During a recession, however, there might be much more competition in the labor market for teachers because many more qualified people are applying for teaching jobs.

(A) This information is not significant in the context of the argument, which does not need to assume that only government-funded schools provide free education.

(B) Correct. Getting an answer to this question would provide us with specific information useful in evaluating the argument.

A “yes” answer to this question would suggest that competition for teaching jobs in Vargonian government-funded schools would be keener during recessions.

A “no” answer would suggest that the level of competition would decrease during recessions.

(C) Discovering the current student-teacher ratio in Vargonia's schools would be of no value, by itself, in evaluating the argument. We do not know what the new upper limit on the student-teacher ratio is, and we do not know whether Vargonia is currently in a recession.

(D) Finding out whether the proportion this refers to is 1 percent, for example, or 4 percent, would tell us nothing about whether getting teaching jobs at government-funded schools in Vargonia becomes more difficult during a recession. Among other things, we do not know whether Vargonia is currently in a recession, and we do not know what proportion of Vargonia's workers would be qualified candidates for teaching jobs.

(E) This is of no relevance in evaluating the argument because, presumably, the new limit on student-teacher ratios will be complied with. Thus, even if student-teacher ratios in the past would have exceeded the new limit, the argument concerns whether, in the future, getting a teaching job in Vargonia's government-funded schools will be made more difficult by a recession.

Straight B. The conclusion says it would not be hard to find a teaching job in government-funded schools. Therefore, if we did know that there isn't an increase in government-school teaching jobs during recessions, that evidence would help us in validating the argument or otherwise.

Cheers

Will go for B

whenever you see "evaluate the argument" - is a question where you mostly weaken the conclusion

conclusion: "getting a teaching job in Vargonia's government-funded schools will easy by a recession

(A) Whether in Vargonia there are any schools not funded by the government that offer children an education free of charge
--> OUt of scope

(B) Whether the number of qualified applicants for teaching positions in government-funded schools increases significantly during economic recessions
--> if teaching positions will increase, then there is possibility that that getting job will not be easy. This weaken the conclusion. Kepp it.

(C) What the current student-teacher ratio in Vargonia's government-funded schools is
--> OUt of scope

(D) What proportion of Vargonia's workers currently hold jobs as teachers in government-funded schools
--> OUt of scope

(E) Whether in the past a number of government funded schools in Vargonia have had student teacher ratios well in excess of the new limit
--> if the ratio exceed the new limit it doesnot necessarilty make getting the job difficult

Hope that helps

B is correct..
The soul of a CR question is its Conclusion. If You've found the conclusion your more than half job is done.
Here is the conclusion : Its Easy to find Job in Govt. funded schools during recession.
In evaluate question , you have to find a query whose answer can hit the the assumption and logic of the argument on its nose

Now we will just look at the answers to each query:
a) out of scope ; even if there are some schools that provide free education , we dont have enough premises to conclude any effect on our argument..
b)right on the money !!! if there is a significant increase of job applicants .. finding a job might not be so easy as it seems ..
c) are you serious ... please pray that GMAC starts providing approx 4 this kinda options with the right one .....
d) Its making our task more easy . .. lets say 50% hold a job .. so what ? absolutely nothing !!
e)past is past ... .even in past if this situation was there .. what i'm getting from that .. .nothing !! .. there are no premises in the question to justify any effect ...

Hope this helps ..

+1 B.

For now, we can safely ignore 'E' ,but If the teacher student ratio (instead of student teacher ratio) was given well excess of the new limit, I think this option would also have been the contender because if there are already more teachers in the government schools, even in economic recession they might not need to hire new teachers.


Press +1 kudos if you like my explanation

Okay, so I understand that B is the most correct answer, but my first answer (got it wrong because it is the last question on the test and i was rushed and panicking) was A.

And here is why, the conclusion states that although most employment opportunities contract in economic recessions, getting a teaching job in Vargonia's government-funded schools will not be made more difficult by a recession.

Which of the following would be most important to determine in order to evaluate the argument?

A says whether in Vargonia there are any schools not funded by the government that offer children an education free of charge.

I believe this also would be useful in examining (although not the best). The conclusion specifically states that getting a job at a government funded job will not be anymore difficult because of the teacher/student limit.

If there were private schools that offered an education free of charge, all the parents would simply enroll their students there instead... (In America, it is generally accepted that private schools are better than public schools, so i would expect us to have to assume this to be true in this case as well, since the GMAT is an American test)

Causing the enrollment at the Vargonia government-funded schools to drop... which would then make that Student to Teacher ratio cap void, and therefore just as difficult to get a job at a Vargonia gov-funded school.

Why is my logic wrong here?

I had a doubt about option (C)
I narrowed down to B/C - But C was kinda my prephrased answer so picked it anyway
My Reasoning For C
If the current student:teacher ratio is very low , for instance schools have 10 students and 50 teachers.. So in an economic recession, the school will not need to hire teachers - because the ratio will not increase above the limit
Would really appreciate if somene can guide how I should avoid such issues, i have encountered this multiple times ....

1. The passage states that a certain teacher-student ratio is to be maintained as per new law.
2. During recession, the number of students tend to increase, which means that as per the law the number of teachers also need to be increased.
3. Conclusion - Hence during recession, getting a teaching job in Vargonia's government-funded schools will not be difficult.
Option A: Schools not funded by the govt. is out of scope of the passage. Hence, incorrect.
Option B: If the number of teachers also increases during recession, then finding job in govt. funded school might be difficult. This option would help evaluate the argument. Hence, correct.
Option C: Current teacher-student ratio is irrelevant. It is the new ratio required as per law that is discussed in the passage. Hence, incorrect.
Option D: This option is again irrelevant to the passage discussed. Hence, incorrect.
Option E: Student-teacher ratio in past is irrelevant to the passage. Hence, incorrect.

lol throughout this post I see people choosing right answer B for 2 different and actually contrary reasons. The conclusion is: "to get a teaching job during a crisis will be easy".

Some say getting a job can be difficult because of the highly incerased competition and an increased pool of applicants. Others posit (Magoosh e.g.) that actually the school will not be able to find enough good candidates to fill the available positions during crisis.

Personally I incline to consider Magosh's line of reasoning more valid. Say the newly required S/T ratio is 100 to 10. Say Vargonia is undergoing the crisis and the number of students has risen to 200. Hence we need to find additional 10 teachers to sustain the ration: 200:20. The school understandably assumes that given the overall slacking labour market they will easily fill the 10 teacher vacancies. But will they? It might perfectly be the case Vargonia is so small that there are only 3 qualified candidates for the position, even during the crisis.

OG Explanation:-
Argument Evaluation

Situation: During a recession, the number of children in government‐funded schools in Vargonia tends to increase. Vargonian children are entitled to a free education in these schools. A new law requires student‐teacher ratios in these schools to remain below a certain limit.

Reasoning Which of the fi ve questions would provide us with the best information for evaluating the argument?
The argument’s conclusion is that recessions do not make teaching jobs in Vargonia’s government‐funded schools harder to get. During recessions, the reasoning goes, more students will enroll in Vargonia’s government‐funded schools than in nonrecession times. Implicit in the argument is the thought that, because the new law sets an upper limit on the average number of students per teacher, schools that get an influx of new students would have to hire more teachers. During a recession, however, there might be much more competition in the labor market for teachers because many more qualifi ed people are applying for teaching jobs.

A This information is not signifi cant in the context of the argument, which does not need to assume that only government‐funded schools provide free education.

B Correct. Getting an answer to this question would provide us with specifi c information useful in evaluating the argument. A “yes” answer to this question would suggest that competition for teaching jobs in Vargonian government‐funded schools would be keener during recessions. A “no” answer would suggest that the level of competition would decrease during recessions.

C Discovering the current student‐teacher ratio in Vargonia’s schools would be of no value, by itself, in evaluating the argument. We do not know what the new upper limit on the student‐teacher ratio is, and we do not know whether Vargonia is currently in a recession.

D Finding out whether the proportion this refers to is 1 percent, for example, or 4 percent, would tell us nothing about whether getting teaching jobs at government‐funded schools in Vargonia becomes more difficult during a recession. Among other things, we do not know whether Vargonia is currently in a recession, and we do not know what proportion of Vargonia’s workers would be qualifi ed candidates for teaching jobs.

E This is of no relevance in evaluating the argument because, presumably, the new limit on student-teacher ratios will be complied with. Th us, even if student‐teacher ratios in the past would have exceeded the new limit, the argument concerns whether, in the future , getting a teaching job in Vargonia’s government‐funded schools will be made more diffi cult by a recession.

Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that student-teacher ratios in government-funded schools not exceed a certain limit. All Vargonian children are entitled to education, free of charge, in these schools. When a recession occurs and average incomes fall, the number of children enrolled in government-funded schools tends to increase. Therefore, though most employment opportunities contract in economic recessions, getting a teaching job in Vargonia's government-funded schools will not be made more difficult by a recession.

Which of the following would be most important to determine in order to evaluate the argument?

(A) Whether in Vargonia there are any schools not funded by the government that offer children an education free of charge
….IF THIS OPTION ADD “DURING RECESSION”,THEN IT CAN BE A CONTENDER



(B) Whether the number of qualified applicants for teaching positions in government-funded schools increases significantly during economic recessions. ….correct


(C) What the current student-teacher ratio in Vargonia's government-funded schools is

(D) What proportion of Vargonia's workers currently hold jobs as teachers in government-funded schools

(E) Whether in the past a number of government funded schools in Vargonia have had student teacher ratios well in excess of the new limit


Conclusion: find a job in government-funding school “won’t be more difficult” during recession

“won’t be more difficult”,thus maybe easier(opportunities increase)/the same ----but it won't be more difficult(opportunities decrease)

--->if find a job during recession become “more difficult”, then it will weaken the conclusion, thus become a determinant in evaluating the argument
We had to choose which option will weaken the conclusion
-or say, “which option” will make finding a job in government-funding school “be more difficult” during recession???



For (E), if its true, will it weaken the conclusion?
If the answer is yes, then (E) can be a determinant in evaluating the argument

(E) Whether in the past a number of government funded schools in Vargonia have had student teacher ratios well in excess of the new limit(yes-no question)

If we assume the above option(E) to be true, and we change it to positive sentence
---> in the past a number of government funded schools in Vargonia have had student teacher ratios well in excess of the new limit

To an “normal period”
---> the ratio in normal period well in excess of the new(recession) limit
, thus
in normal period, one teacher can accept more students

in recession period, one teacher can only accept less student based on the new limit




To this option(E), we had to notice that, does “in the past” mean normal period or whether its recession, we don’t know for sure, here option (E) doesn’t specifically mention what this “in the past” typify
Also, “new” limit, does this “new” mean recession period, option(E) also doesn’t say very exactly


NOW WE CAN ONLY GUESS
If “in the past” indeed mean “normal period”
and also we know that during recession, students increase in government-funding school(but in this, we don’t know the degree to which it increase and whether or not it will go beyond the new limit)

The demand for the teacher---will have two situations
1. Same(maybe the new limit is still high enough that we don’t need to worry that we will pass beyond it---one teacher still has room to accept more students and won’t pass the limit)
2. Rise
And it will never show the third situation “decrease”



So if (E)--- in the past a number of government funded schools in Vargonia have had student teacher ratios well in excess of the new limit---IS TRUE
--->THEN
in recession period, one teacher can only accept less student based on the new limit
--->the demand for teacher will stay the same or increase

will this weaken the conclusion-- find a job in government-funding school “won’t be more difficult” during recession
----the answer obviously is “NOT”

---THUS (E) CANNOT BE A DETERMINANT IN EVALUATING ARGUMENT

BUT ONLY IN THIS SITUATION THAT
- IF THE EXTENT TO WHICH “S-T RATIO LIMIT” INCREASE IS LARGER THAN THE AMOUNT TO THE INCREASE OF QUANTITY OF “STUDENTS”(DURING RECESSION)

THEN THE DEMAND FOR TEACHER WILL DECREASE RATHER THAN INCREASE, AND THUS WEAKEN THE CONCLUSION


………..FROM ABOVE, WE SEE THAT TOO MANY FACTORS SHOULD BE CONSIDER INTO THIS OPTION(E), IT OBVIOUSLY WON’T BE THE CORRECT ANSWER

Doubt 1 :
The Conclusion that I had identified from the passage was : Number of Teaching jobs will increase as number of children enrolled will increase during recession.
But the conclusion here is very different and it is verbatim to the conclusion.
As per my understanding we need to infer the conclusion from the passage.
Kindly help me here to get to the right conclusion

Doubt 2 :Had chosen option D basis this understanding. Where if the current proportion of Vargonia's workers is high then not many will be able to apply but if its low then they might. This is directly effecting the conclusion
Please help understand why it is still not the right option

Answer to doubt 1: For "evaluate type" type question, you don't have to infer the conclusion. The "official explanation" also mentions, "The argument’s conclusion is that recessions do not make teaching jobs in Vargonia’s government‐funded schools harder to get."

Answer to doubt 2: The details in option D would tell us nothing about whether getting teaching jobs at government‐funded schools in Vargonia becomes more difficult during a recession.

ChrisLele
Option A states that There are other schools (Other than Government funded) that give education for free. Now in the premise it is mentioned that, due to recession income falls, and people turn towards free education.
So if Option A is true then there will be less kids enrolled in the government school and number of student will not increase significantly and hence need of teachers does not increase.

Why this is wrong?

sujaygmat
You are missing a key thing here. The passage says that the legal requirement is that that student-teacher ratios in government-funded schools not exceed a certain limit. During recession the number of children enrolled in government-funded schools tends to increase. Also, note that the conclusion is only about getting a job in government-funded schools which won't be difficult to get during a recession.

Take for example, initial number of students is 's' and teacher is 't' in government funded schools. The ratio is \(\frac{s}{t}\). Let's say students increase in number at government funded schools to 'S' and since there is a legal requirement that student-teacher ratio needs to be maintained at government funded schools the number of teachers increase to 'T'. Thus, the ratio becomes \(\frac{S}{T}\).
Now, as per A, if there are other schools offering free education, does the ratio \(\frac{S}{T}\) gets affected by that. No!!. Surely, the number of students may or may not increase(it will always increase as given in passage) at government funded schools but ratio has to remains same such that \(\frac{s}{t}=\frac{S}{T}\).

So, knowing about other schools hardly impacts the passage in either way. Even if you consider A then do you know how it impacts our passage. If you do so, then you have to make assumption(something that is strongly a no-no in GMAT) so that it impacts the scenario.

Hello Experts,

I have a doubt regarding the conclusion. The conclusion says:

Therefore, though most employment opportunities contract in economic recessions, getting a teaching job in Vargonia's government-funded schools will not be made more difficult by a recession.

This is something that is talking about the future. Choice B states:

Whether the number of qualified applicants for teaching positions in government-funded schools increases significantly during economic recessions.

Can we analyze anything from this about the future? I think this can only be evaluated if something is mentioned about the same scenario in the past.

Am I missing something here? Pls help.