Over the last ten years, the Office of the Provost has

Let's simplify the argument:

Those taking freshman OC received a higher grade point average than those who didn't. Therefore, all should take freshman OC.

Analysis: If there is something different about the freshmen who take OC from those that don't, then we have cannot logically conclude that anyone who takes freshman OC will get a higher GPA.

(B) provides a reason. The group who takes freshmen OC are different. They had to pass rigorous tests. Basically they are the very smart ones. It is not the fact that they take OC that makes them smart.

Thus (B) is the answer.

(C) does not make a distinction between the group. Indeed, it doesn't even mention those who take freshmen OC. It just talks about graduates in general and therefore does not relate to the argument.

Hope that helps .
_________________

-Most State University students who took organic chemistry in their freshmen year did not earn a high grade in that class. (wrong, out of scope, the grade is not relevant, only if the freshmen took or not the course)
-Currently, in order to enroll in organic chemistry as freshmen, students must pass a rigorous series of prerequisite exams. (correct, if the students need to take a rigorous exam to join the organic chemistry class it is very likely that they are best students overall and thus more likely to graduate on school with best overall grades)
-The average grade point average of graduates of State University has risen steadily over the past ten years. (wrong, out of scope)
-Many State University graduates who took organic chemistry in their freshman year did not graduate in the top 20 percent of the class. (wrong, there is no information about ranking between students, only whether they took or not the organic chemistry course).
-Most State University graduates who graduated in the top 20 percent of the class took at least one chemistry course every year during college. (wrong, actually strenghten the conclusion)

Not sure why it should be B

I voted for C - it makes more sense

Conclusion : "organic chemistry should be mandatory for freshmen since it clearly promotes academic success."

Premise 1 : the students who enrolled in organic chemistry during their freshman year graduated with a higher overall grade point average than did the students who did not take organic chemistry during their freshman year.

bookmarking for future reference

kuttingchai,

C doesn't make any distinction between the students who took the organic chemistry or not. The steadily rise on graduates average grade could be result of a wide range of factors. There is no evidence if this increase is because there is more students taking the chemistry course and thus, the chemistry course must be mandatory for freshman.

voted for the wrong answer here.....

I'd say B as well. A student's attendance in the chemistry class is correlated with his GPA, the author inferes from this that the attendance caused the high GPA, to weaken this you need to find a different cause for the correlation, the test, which only the brightest students, who are more likely to graduate with a high GPA anyway, pass, gives such a cause.

Why E supports the argument...

Good question and Choice B is indeed right. B provides a reason why just taking organic chemistry is not the reason for higher overall grade.

why not (A)
-Most State University students who took organic chemistry in their freshmen year did not earn a high grade in that class.

I am confused.. Why can't the answer be A?
Most State University students who took organic chemistry in their freshmen year did not earn a high grade in that class.
If this were true, then it means that taking organic chemistry doesn't lead to high grades.


Thanks in advance...

Hi domfrancondumas

Interesting question. But you missed a conclusion.

Let read the argument one more time.

Over the last ten years, the Office of the Provost has studied the courses selected by freshmen at State University. Without exception, and without regard to major, the students who enrolled in organic chemistry during their freshman year graduated with a higher overall grade point average than did the students who did not take organic chemistry during their freshman year. Thus, organic chemistry should be mandatory for freshmen since it clearly promotes academic success.

The argument presents the fact that those who took organic chemistry class during their freshman year ==> will graduate with higher overall grade. Thus, the argument concludes that taking organic chemistry make students have higher academic grades. You need to break this conclusion by showing that taking organic chemistry is not the main cause.

Let see A)
Most State University students who took organic chemistry in their freshmen year did not earn a high grade in that class.

A just says that students did NOT have high grade in only organic chemistry class. A does not say that students who took organic chemistry in their freshmen year did not have high grade at their graduation.

Thus, A does not help to weaken the conclusion.

Hope it helps.

" overall grade point average than did the students who did not take organic chemistry".This is the key point in the premise.One need to be n top 20 to get a high average.

straight B without any questions!
If to take organic chemistry, you need to pass some prerequisite exams, then only the best students could actually get into the OC class. Without doubt, the best students will have greater GPA than the rest.

this is a common pattern in weaken question

Imo B Currently, in order to enroll in organic chemistry as freshmen, students must pass a rigorous series of prerequisite exams.
If the students are smart then they do not have to take organic chemistry and all those students taking student chemistry are because they had taken rigorous series of prerequisite exams

Over the last ten years, the Office of the Provost has studied the courses selected by freshmen at State University. Without exception, and without regard to major, the students who enrolled in organic chemistry during their freshman year graduated with a higher overall grade point average than did the students who did not take organic chemistry during their freshman year. Thus, organic chemistry should be mandatory for freshmen since it clearly promotes academic success.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion above?

-Most State University students who took organic chemistry in their freshmen year did not earn a high grade in that class.
-Currently, in order to enroll in organic chemistry as freshmen, students must pass a rigorous series of prerequisite exams.
-The average grade point average of graduates of State University has risen steadily over the past ten years.
-Many State University graduates who took organic chemistry in their freshman year did not graduate in the top 20 percent of the class.
-Most State University graduates who graduated in the top 20 percent of the class took at least one chemistry course every year during college.

To me, B and E are close. I understand why B is correct, In fact I got it right, but I was hung up on E. Isn't E saying that Chemistry students are smarter than most, so taking one class won't help? To me, B and E are saying essentially the same thing. Any help on this would be appreciated!
_________________

I have a doubt on B.

The argument is talking about the performance over the last ten years, whereas option B is talking about current period. Currently students may need to pass a rigorous series of prerequisite exams, but does it meant that they needed to pass a rigorous series of prerequisite exams over the last ten years?
_________________

I share this thought. The word currently makes it ambigious. If it would not be used, answer B would ber 100% correct imo

I have some concern over the official answer, choice B.

The passage talks about study that was completed over the ten year period. And choice B talks about the current prerequisite to join the course. What if that prerequisite was not there for most of the years ?