This question seems to have stumped many because of he positioning of the conclusion. Finding the conclusion of the argument is the most important task, and here the conclusion is -
The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy.Note: The classic conclusion markers,
strong tone and
strong subjective opinion is found in this line. The last line - the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy - is used to justify the conclusion.
Argument Structure:
PREMISES:
1. Failure to increase Pells Grant or at least limit its reduction.
2. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class.
3. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.
CONCLUSION:
The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy .
The question stem asks us to weaken the argument.
Lets look at Choice (E):
Not Enough Information: It talks about Federal Spending on education whereas we are interested in improving access to historically disadvantaged sections of the society. We do not know how much of Federal Spending on education will be directed towards improving access to the disadvantaged sections of the society.
Choice (D):
Tempting but Trap: On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.
The argument states that Pells Grant improves access to higher education. It does not say it fully covers the cost of attending a four-year college or university. May be 15% is enough to improve access to higher education.
Choice (C):
Irrelevant: Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.
We do not know how it improves or reduces access to higher education.
Choice (B):
Tempting but a Trap: The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.
A very tempting choice but note the word "neediest". The neediest candidates lack information, and they are likely to be a small number, and the majority may actually benefit from it. So it strengthens the argument rather than weakening it.
The author of the argument is hoping that you will confuse a smaller group (neediest) with the larger group (all students who benefit from Pell's grants).
Choice (A):
Correct: Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget.
Note the words - “total spending on programs targeted at
improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget.” It uses the same set of words and is a perfect alternative to the Pell Grants. Hence the criticism of the Congress for failing to increase Pell Grants is nullified. This is the right choice!
Hope that helps!
Harish Kumar
Verbal Trainer
Crack Verbal
_________________
Crackverbal Prep Team
www.crackverbal.com