Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that student-teacher ratios in government-funded schoolsnot exceed a certain limit. All Vargonian children are entitled to education, free of charge, in these schools. When a recession occurs and average incomes fall, the number of children enrolled in government-funded schools tends to increase. Therefore, though most employment opportunities contract in economic recessions, getting a teaching job in Vargonia's government-funded schools will not be made more difficult by a recession.

Which of the following would be most important to determine in order to evaluate the argument?

(A) Whether in Vargonia there are any schools not funded by the government that offer children an education free of charge

(B) Whether the number of qualified applicants for teaching positions in government-funded schools increases significantly during economic recessions

(C) What the current student-teacher ratio in Vargonia's government-funded schools is

(D) What proportion of Vargonia's workers currently hold jobs as teachers in government-funded schools

(E) Whether in the past a number of government funded schools in Vargonia have had student teacher ratios well in excess of the new limit

Will go for B

whenever you see "evaluate the argument" - is a question where you mostly weaken the conclusion

conclusion: "getting a teaching job in Vargonia's government-funded schools will easy by a recession

(A) Whether in Vargonia there are any schools not funded by the government that offer children an education free of charge
--> OUt of scope

(B) Whether the number of qualified applicants for teaching positions in government-funded schools increases significantly during economic recessions
--> if teaching positions will increase, then there is possibility that that getting job will not be easy. This weaken the conclusion. Kepp it.

(C) What the current student-teacher ratio in Vargonia's government-funded schools is
--> OUt of scope

(D) What proportion of Vargonia's workers currently hold jobs as teachers in government-funded schools
--> OUt of scope

(E) Whether in the past a number of government funded schools in Vargonia have had student teacher ratios well in excess of the new limit
--> if the ratio exceed the new limit it doesnot necessarilty make getting the job difficult

Hope that helps

Which of the following would be most important to determine in order to evaluate the argument?

Count me in on (B). Here's my train of thought:

Premise: Vargonia student-teacher ratio not exceed (mathematically = s/t; by this stage I'm beginning to open possibilities of mathematical critical reasoning)
Premise: All children entitled
Premise: Recession
Conclusion: Getting a teaching job not more difficult

Now, with this question type (evaluate), the point of attack is: "if this answer choice is true, would it weaken or strengthen the conclusion?"

That's why it'd be best to think about "evaluate" question types as "hybrid" strengthen/weaken type. Essentially, you're just determining if the given answer choice could weaken or strengthen the conclusion if that given answer is deemed true/false.

(A) Whether in Vargonia there are any schools not funded by the government that offer children an education free of charge - See, this is out of scope. Much more, if this is true, it wouldn't affect the conclusion of the argument. As a matter of fact, this goes beyond the scope of the argument.

(B) Whether the number of qualified applicants for teaching positions in government-funded schools increases significantly during economic recessions - See our plan of attack is best used here. If the number of qualified increases then this would strengthen the argument. Why? Because we will be able to maintain the student/teacher ratio. However, if the number decreases then the conclusion is weakened.

(C) What the current student-teacher ratio in Vargonia's government-funded schools is - Now, if you determine the student-teacher ratio, would it affect the conclusion of the argument? Of course not. Eliminate.

(D) What proportion of Vargonia's workers currently hold jobs as teachers in government-funded schools - Again, this doesn't affect the conclusion of the argument whether it be true or false. If I told you the proportion is 5 is to 1, would if affect the conclusion? Eliminate.

(E) Whether in the past a number of government funded schools in Vargonia have had student teacher ratios well in excess of the new limit - So? If the past ratio exceeded, would it strengthen or weaken the argument? Of course not. Eliminate.

Hope I helped. How about some kuuuudossss?
_________________

Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.
- T. Roosevelt

Thanks for your explanation..! makes much more sense.
_________________

The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get it and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!

Okay, so I understand that B is the most correct answer, but my first answer (got it wrong because it is the last question on the test and i was rushed and panicking) was A.

And here is why, the conclusion states that although most employment opportunities contract in economic recessions, getting a teaching job in Vargonia's government-funded schools will not be made more difficult by a recession.

Which of the following would be most important to determine in order to evaluate the argument?

A says whether in Vargonia there are any schools not funded by the government that offer children an education free of charge.

I believe this also would be useful in examining (although not the best). The conclusion specifically states that getting a job at a government funded job will not be anymore difficult because of the teacher/student limit.

If there were private schools that offered an education free of charge, all the parents would simply enroll their students there instead... (In America, it is generally accepted that private schools are better than public schools, so i would expect us to have to assume this to be true in this case as well, since the GMAT is an American test)

Causing the enrollment at the Vargonia government-funded schools to drop... which would then make that Student to Teacher ratio cap void, and therefore just as difficult to get a job at a Vargonia gov-funded school.

Why is my logic wrong here?

I will go mathematically to given premises, Given S/T = K (need to be const as per the law of Vargonia) i.e ratio of students and teachers . but during recession the no. of students enrolled increase so ratio will be (S+x)/T > K ( where x is no of increased students ). As numerator is increased so the ratio will greater than the previous ratio K.To maintain the ratio , the no of teachers need, to be increased

ie option B
Whether the number of qualified applicants for teaching positions in government-funded schools increases significantly during economic recessions
_________________

"Only God will Judge Me"