I would really appreciate if you could show how the negation technique is causing the argument to fail for choice B and not for C.
financial aid enables students to achieve high GPAs by alleviating the stress related to financial concerns and freeing up students' time to study more.
The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
B. High GPAs were not the primary criterion upon which the scholarship awards were based.
--> negate: High GPAs were the
primary criterion upon which the scholarship awards were based.
okay if this true then the conclusion cant be drawn it just fails.
C. Finance-related stress affects student performance in a manner similar to that of restricted study time.
-->Negate: Finance-related stress affects student performance in a manner not
similar to that of restricted study time.
so it says finance related issues does affects
may be less or more than restricted study time. Then also conclusion can be drawn and it properly stands.
hope this helps
Practice Practice and practice...!!
If my reply /analysis is helpful-->please press KUDOS
If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.