Pretty good!

IMO A.
If total spending will increase then criticism in first sentence of paragraph stands void. Thus weakening the conclusion.

For a while I was stuck between B and D, I beleive they are trap, rightly set up for people like me.
_________________

-Albert
My GMAT Preparation: http://albertrahul.blogspot.com/search/label/GMAT

The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year’s budget. 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. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

MAIN POINT : allocation of pell grants for next year's budget. correct response should show that current admin did not fail to increase to pell grants.pell grants are some pecentage of total budget. in that case if the budget for next year is less compared to this year.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?

A) Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget.

B) The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.
C) Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.
D) On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.
E) Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.

IMO E is correct answer.

OA please

Conclusion (Subjective Opinion): The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year’s budget.

A) Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget. [ This is good but nothing talks about education – eliminate it]

B) The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants. [ Hold it]
C) Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities. [ After School programs not discussed – eliminate it]
D) On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university. [ How much of pell’s grant is irreverent ]
E) Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget. [Good one but does not provide any thing to argument – eliminate it]

Answer: B

B, explained by others.

i will go with B since if B is true culprit is not budget but awareness so it will weaken the arugement "due to lack of budget" gap between poor and rich is widening.


OA please..????

It should be B.

Argument is => reduction in budgets will widen the gap between rich and poor. Choice B states - it is not reduction in budget but utilization of budget is widening the gap, hence it is the best choice.

(A) - stimulus already states that next year budget will be reduced. Even if budget is increased next year, access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase only if budget is utilized.
(D) - iI find D to be supporting the conclusion. Only 15% cost of education is funded. If budgets are further reduced next year, students would be getting even lesser pie and hence gap between rich and poor will widen. Hence it supports are argument.


Cumic

I will go with A. What is the OA??!!

The question is testing whether you confuse a subset with the whole set. Are Pell grants the only mechanism used by governments to help the disadvantaged pursue higher education? Or are there other programs? Perhaps the government will cut Pell grants, but fund new, equally effective programs. A) tells us that there are other programs besides Pell grants, and they are receiving increased funding.

That said, I do find the question a bit strange. What is the conclusion, after all? It seems the more important conclusion of the argument is that 'access to higher education for the disadvantaged is required to prevent the gap between rich and poor from widening, and to prevent straining the stability of our democracy'. None of the answer choices addresses this conclusion. There is an implication, of course, that 'cutting Pell grants will make it more difficult for the disadvantaged to pursue higher education', but I don't read that to be the main conclusion of the argument, as presented. Still, that's the conclusion addressed by the answer choices.
_________________

Nov 2011: After years of development, I am now making my advanced Quant books and high-level problem sets available for sale. Contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com for details.

Private GMAT Tutor based in Toronto

The argument's conclusion is: Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.


I go for option D. This is because since the argument claims that no access to grand assistance will increase the gap between the rich and poor and that increasingly straining the stability of our democracy BECAUSE the poor will NOT be able to seek education. According to option D, the poor will still be unable to seek the education with the grand assistance because it covers less than 15% of the education fees. Avoiding this assistance will NOT CAUSE the straining because the straining will STILL OCCUR anyways should the grand assistance be continued., thus weakening the argument.