I actually dont see a flawed pattern here.
For me the argument is:

Hypothesis: Bad Teaching-->Student Failure
Conclusion: No Student Failure (grades disappeared) --> No Bad Teaching (teaching improved)
Nothing worng with that!
Please comment.
Thanks.

The school principal insisted that student failures are caused by bad teaching. In a relatively short time failing grades disappeared from the school. The principal happily recognized this as evidence that the teaching had improved at the school.
The flawed pattern of reasoning in the above is most similar to that in which one of the following?
(A) The nutritionist insisted that the weight gain that team members complained of was caused by overeating. In a brief time all the members stopped overeating. The nutritionist was pleased to conclude that they had stopped gaining weight.
(B) The manager insisted that the workers who filed complaints had too many difference tasks. The manager simplified the jobs, and complains stopped. The manager happily concluded that the working environment had been improved.
(C) The nutritionist insisted that the weight gain that team members complained of was merely in their imagination. Members were given weight charts for the last three months. The nutritionist was pleased to conclude that the complaints of weight gain had stopped.
(D) The manager insisted that the workers who filed complaints did not have enough to do. Soon there were no more complaints filed. The manager was pleased to conclude that the workers were now productively filling their time.
(E) The nutritionist insisted that the weight gain that team members complained of was cause by their thinking of food too often. The nutritionist was happy to conclude that the weight gain had stopped once the team members reported that they had stopped thinking of food so often.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

bad teaching responsible for failure.
failure improved therefore teaching must have improved.

X responsible for Y
Y improved Hence X improved

In E
Thinking food responsible for weight gain.
weight gain improved therefore thinking improved(stopped)

according to me its D.
whats OA ??

D
Took me few minutes to compare and read through all the options. D is closest.

IMO B..OA pls

D. It's circular logic. In the example given, the principal is claiming that the students are failing because of bad teaching. When the students stop failing, he then claims that the teaching has improved. But he never proved that bad teaching was the cause of student failures, nor did he actually show that teaching improved. He made a claim, didn't back it up, then used his own unproven claim to prove itself.

In D, the same type of circular logic is used - the manager claims that workers are filing complaints because they have nothing to do, but fails to back that claim up at all. Then, when workers stop filing complaints, the manager claims it's because the workers no longer have nothing to do. Again, he makes a claim, fails to provide evidence, and then uses the claim to prove itself.

1:21 - D. Woohoo!
_________________

Did I help you? Please give me kudos.

Each moment of time ought to be put to proper use, either in business, in improving the mind, in the innocent and necessary relaxations and entertainments of life, or in the care of the moral and religious part of our nature.

-William Andrus Alcott

+1 to D from me.

Seems to me like the original sentence fails to describe any action taken to combat the issue at hand. In several of the answer choices action is taken to improve the situation, such as in option A, which explicitly stated that several members stopped overeating.

OA is D, and your reasoning is fantastic!

However,

Premise: C>E
Conclusion: No E>No C

is not a flawed pattern.

Could anybody clarify that?
Thanks in advance!


_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

Yeah its D...