Many high schools send students to special courses to

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???

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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 20%.

Please explain your answer.

Basically we want an answer choice that weakens the argument. Only option A is the contender. If a school has better knowledge of exam or expertise in the particular area, it doesnt need to send its students to language school and also would be able to better provide the education. Thus the results. However, other schools still need to send students for such courses

Ans A it is.

Sorry i am still not clear as to why is E incorrect. Why do you say that it talks about number? It says that number of students increased by 20%. so if usually there were 100 students passing the exam after 1995 after attending the language course the pass % increased to 120. Its still % and not absolute numbers.

(E) says that "the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by 20%". The number of students who passed implies nothing about number of students who appeared since we don't know how the passing rates have changed.
Say prior to 1995, 200 students used to appear for the exam and 50% i.e. 100 used to pass. Now say 240 appear and still 50% i.e. 120 pass. The 'number of students who passed' has increased from 100 to 120 (i.e. by 20%) but that doesn't imply that students are performing better now. They are performing the same as before since the pass percentage is the same (in very restricted terms).

Hi Ankur1901

you right, Well the conclusion is whether the language course is waste of time and money or not.And option A only affects the premise" --that high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995--" without affecting the conclusion.

how people who support option B will prove that that the course is waste of time for another school ( in fact for all other schools as the tone of conclusion says). Moreover, the question is about language exam score ( which E clearly indicates) not overall score.Hence E suits better.


Even if , E says that the 20% rise is due to increase in number of students then in itself it infers that more people are joining this course.
thanks
Sid

picked E, because the argument says MANY. nevertheless, many might be a small portion overall. Thus, the only one that actually works is A. if schools who do not send, know better the exam, the teachers of these school know better how to prepare the students.

I originally thought E, read A again, got lazy and picked E.

Don't get lazy! When you've narrowed it down take the 30 more seconds to really refine your answer!

E is wrong because we know nothing about the comparison between 2 types of school.

Imo A
The argument can be understood by taking sets A and B
A =does not send students to prepare
B=Send students to prepare
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.
If A does not send its students outside to prepare for the exam ,it does not mean that the quality of the program is not good .
Because there are other colleges which might use it for good .

also KarishmaB we don't know -these students belong to which school, one which sent them to language courses or the one which does not send them .