According to a recent research study, more than 90% percent of graduat

IMO D
The argument is if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools
What weakens it is D.
It explains more opportunities provided in public school and more likelihood that children will go to college.
Option C looks interesting however we cannot assume that money/fees is the reason why public school students don't go to college.

OA ?

According to a recent research study, more than 90% percent of graduates of private high schools in a certain county continue their education in college. By contrast, only 65% of graduates of public high schools subsequently pursue college education. Therefore, if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.

Which of the following statements would most seriously weaken the argument above?
A. Graduates of private schools typically score higher on standardized tests and other tests of academic achievement.-> this is irrelevant
B. While private schools are typically very expensive, attendance of public school is free for the residents of the county. -> irrelevant
C. In comparison with graduates of private schools, a substantially greater proportion of public school graduates receive need-based financial aid for their college education. -> this is irrelevant
D. In comparison with private schools, public schools provide more opportunities for student involvement in sports and other athletic activities, which almost always increase the likelihood of students’ acceptance to colleges. -> this strengthens

E. Since most public schools are located in rural areas of the county populated primarily by farmers, nearly 30% of students from public high schools choose to pursue farming occupations rather than apply to colleges. -> this weakens
the logic stated above since the students themselves opt not to go to college

Definitely (E).

A, C, and D all STRENGTHEN the argument. B is irrelevant/out of scope.

E is the only example that gives a reason for why the author's causation conclusion is not valid. Author sees Private HS college rate (90+%), Public HS college rate (65%), and thinks attending private HS = college attendance. E points out a separate reason for the discrepancy, making the data merely a correlation, not a causation.

According to a recent research study, more than 90% percent of graduates of private high schools in a certain county continue their education in college. By contrast, only 65% of graduates of public high schools subsequently pursue college education. Therefore, if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.

Which of the following statements would most seriously weaken the argument above?

(A) Graduates of private schools typically score higher on standardized tests and other tests of academic achievement. - If anything strengthens the argument
(B) While private schools are typically very expensive, attendance of public school is free for the residents of the county. - Does not address the admission rate into colleges
(C) In comparison with graduates of private schools, a substantially greater proportion of public school graduates receive need-based financial aid for their college education. - same as option B
(D) In comparison with private schools, public schools provide more opportunities for student involvement in sports and other athletic activities, which almost always increase the likelihood of students’ acceptance to colleges. - This option is not too bad, but two things throw red flags. 1) the word always. Although almost directly comes before always, absolute words in CR should throw a flag and require caution. 2) This does not directly tie back to the admission rate. With this option still only 65% of public school students pursue college.
(E) Since most public schools are located in rural areas of the county populated primarily by farmers, nearly 30% of students from public high schools choose to pursue farming occupations rather than apply to colleges. - This option drastically weakens the argument. Although math is not needed to answer this question, this option is stating that 3 out of every 10 public school students do not plan on attending college. So out of the 7 remaining students, on average 6.5 pursue college. That means around 93% of the students who do not have a future in farming, pursue college. All in all this option directly confronts the statistical argument presented.

So I am left with D and E. E is a much stronger candidate.

https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr- ... 12465.html

discussion on Manhattan

Conclusions are like a house of cards that are built on a foundation of a few base cards (aka assumptions). Knock down one of the foundation cards, and regardless of the strength of other cards, the house comes falling down. One should also remember that the scope of the GMAT argument is limited to the facts presented in the argument.
One cannot assume that the rural students of this country are financially disadvantaged in any way. This might a county where the farmers sell a lot of corn and make a whole lot of money.
Let's zone in on the conclusion of the argument :
Therefore, if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.

The whole conclusion is based on the statistical data, which seem to indicate that students who attend private school have some sort of advantage over public school students. Note that the argument is silent about what this advantage could be.

Hmm....What if we prove that the conclusion that is drawn from the statistical data is incorrect. The whole argument is built on the assumption that the % of students who go on to attend college is THE indicator of the superiority of private school instruction vis-a-vis public school instruction.
( E) clearly indicates that given statistic IS NOT a good measure of the superiority of private schools. (E) implies that the % has nothing to do with superiority of private school instruction.

Lets think about it another way
Imagine that i am being interviewed a lawyer :
Scenario : Jane is being accused of grand larceny.
Me : I saw Sam yesterday at 5 o clock and he told me that he saw Jane stealing a car.
Lawyer : Your time card proves that you were in the office till 7 PM, hence there is no way that you could have talked to Sam at 5
Me : You are right. That conversation never happened. I made it up
Judge : The whole case is built on the testimony that you saw Sam at 5. That never happened, hence the case is dismissed.

Bit confused on this one.. the questions stems says - if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.

Isn't D increasing the likelihood that their children will be able to attend college ?

According to a recent research study, more than 90% percent of graduates of private high schools in a certain county continue their education in college. By contrast, only 65% of graduates of public high schools subsequently pursue college education. Therefore, if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.

Which of the following statements would most seriously weaken the argument above?

A. Graduates of private schools typically score higher on standardized tests and other tests of academic achievement.
Its more acting like a strengthener rather than weakener

B. While private schools are typically very expensive, attendance of public school is free for the residents of the county.
Doesn't suggest how free attendance in public schools will increase likelihood of a student to attend graduation

C. In comparison with graduates of private schools, a substantially greater proportion of public school graduates receive need-based financial aid for their college education.
This one is sarcastic. Though public schools receive financial aid, still % of students going college is less. So, there must be some other problem which financial Aid cant solve.

D. In comparison with private schools, public schools provide more opportunities for student involvement in sports and other athletic activities, which almost always increase the likelihood of students’ acceptance to colleges.

Lets say likelihood of getting admission in college through private school is 80% and likelihood of getting admission through public school is 60%. Now I introduce sports and athletic activities in public school which may increase likelihood by 5% and so likelihood increased to 65% from public school, but still chances are less. Therefore, D is not a strong weakener.

E. Since most public schools are located in rural areas of the county populated primarily by farmers, nearly 30% of students from public high schools choose to pursue farming occupations rather than apply to colleges.

Do whatever you want, but we are not interested to go college because we like farming. Such scenario leaves no scope for interpretation of the trend and so, no scope for any recommendation. Here argument fells apart and authors recommendation appears unjustified.

All of the above explanations say that option D is not a weakener enough. But the conclusion says, " if parents wants to increase the likelihood..." , its not saying that the likelihood should be more that private schools. Option D comfortably increases the likelihood of public school students and the feature is exclusive to public schools.

As is usually suggested, I stuck myself to the conclusion, "increase the likelihood". Can someone please point out an error in my reasoning?

Hello nitin

Yes, D strengthens the conclusion, not weakens.

The gut of this question is to test you how to use comparison correctly in an argument. Think about "increase the likelihood" this way:
* more percentage = more likelihood
* less percentage = less likelihood

That's the basic idea. The author mentions percentage of graduates of private high schools go to college > percentage of graduates of public high schools go to college. It means 90% > 65%, so private school increases the likelihood of students to go to college.

We can translate D into: Although public schools did a lot of additional activities in order to increase the likelihood of their students go to college, the percentage of their students go to college is still smaller than that of private schools. It means private schools indeed are better than public schools. Thus, D strengthens the argument, not weakens.

Hope it helps.

A toughie given the time restrain and confusing terms
None the less the correct answer is E

Explaination :- Find the conclusion
THE CONCLUSION IS :- Parents who want to see an increase in the chances of their kids to attend college, should send their kids to private Schools.
We have to weaken it, by showing that going to private schools have no effect on once chances to pursue College education.

Lets attack the problem :- Remember we have to chose an option that weakens the importance of private school.

According to a recent research study, more than 90% percent of graduates of private high schools in a certain county continue their education in college. By contrast, only 65% of graduates of public high schools subsequently pursue college education. Therefore, if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.

Which of the following statements would most seriously weaken the argument above?

(A) Graduates of private schools typically score higher on standardized tests and other tests of academic achievement.
WRONG:- It strengthen the importance of private school. It is saying your kids will perform better on admission test, so chances of admission will increase.


(B) While private schools are typically very expensive, attendance of public school is free for the residents of the county.
WRONG:- It is irrelevant choice. We do not know what sacrifices parents are ready to make to see their kids in good colleges. The question stem or the conclusion never mentions anything about money.


(C) In comparison with graduates of private schools, a substantially greater proportion of public school graduates receive need-based financial aid for their college education.
WRONG:-INSUFFICIENT CONDITION :- THIS CONDITION IS NECESSARY BUT INSUFFICIENT. This is not weakening the argument. It is telling the parents that even if you are poor and cannot afford to send your kids to college, don't worry .. after studying at public school your kids will definitely get a college loan for his education. So don't worry. your kid will definitely go to college. It is just a positive endorsement for public school which is telling that at least after being selected, public school students wont have to worry about fees. (BUT ONLY AFTER BEING SELCTED !!)


(D) In comparison with private schools, public schools provide more opportunities for student involvement in sports and other athletic activities, which almost always increase the likelihood of students’ acceptance to colleges.
WRONG:- INSUFFICIENT CONDITION. Again, it is not weakening the argument. It is telling the parents:- don't worry if your kid is not very intelligent. We will make him a good sportsman and he will join a college based on sports quota and his sports achievement. Although this option is increasing the importance of public school it is not reducing the importance of private schools which is our main goal.
.

(E) Since most public schools are located in rural areas of the county populated primarily by farmers, nearly 30% of students from public high schools choose to pursue farming occupations rather than apply to colleges.
RIGHT:- This is the Option that is not only weakening the argument but is actually destroying it into pieces by telling us the comparison between private and public school is unfair and should not exist in the first place. we already know that 65% students from public school go to college and then this argument tells us the rest of the 30% do not even apply for college. Essentially it is telling us out of the 70% student from public college 65% are accepted in college. This rate of acceptance is 92.88% which is higher than public school acceptance rate of 90%.

SO BY THE GIVEN DATA IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT RATE OF ACCEPTANCE TO COLLEGE IS HIGHER FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND NOT HIGHER FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS AS THE CONCLUSION WAS TRYNG TO MAKE US BELIEVE. THIS OPTION NOT ONLY WEAKEN THE IMPORTANCE OF PRIVATE SCHOOL BUT RATHER DESTROYS IT BY SHOWING THAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE BEETER THAN PRIVATE SCHOOL.

SO THE CONCLUSION IS DESTROYED.

CORRECT ANSWER IS E

Do not quite understand how E is correct.

Fact 1: 30% choose farming--y-- because they are based in rural area public school and choose farming
Fact 2: If they are sent to private school, they will pursue college

Fact1+ Fact2--- supports conclusion that why they should not be in public college(because public = farmers) and if sent to private= no farming(as private are not located in rural area)
I felt that E is strengthening. Expert help needed.

Prompt: According to a recent research study, more than 90% percent of graduates of private high schools in a certain county continue their education in college. By contrast, only 65% of graduates of public high schools subsequently pursue college education. Therefore, if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.

Question: Which of the following statements would most seriously weaken the argument above?

The said argument is: if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.

Option A: Graduates of private schools typically score higher on standardized tests and other tests of academic achievement --> this only strengthens the above argument as if they want their kids to attend college, they should send them to private schools since students from private schools excel in standardized tests and other tests.

Option B: While private schools are typically very expensive, attendance of public school is free for the residents of the county --> argument is irrelevant because it talks about how education is inexpensive (free) in public schools and therefore more students in the county will attend them [ again, attending a public school doesn't guarantee anything + it doesn't strengthen the argument in question]

Option C: In comparison with graduates of private schools, a substantially greater proportion of public school graduates receive need-based financial aid for their college education --> more scholarships for public school graduates mean more graduates from public schools will be determined to get into college, but that's not happening according to the prompt and the option doesn't weaken the argument in question[/color]

Option D: In comparison with private schools, public schools provide more opportunities for student involvement in sports and other athletic activities, which almost always increase the likelihood of students’ acceptance to colleges --> yeah, more students from private schools get into colleges for various reasons, so what? It only strengthens the argument (if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools) in question and doesn't weaken it, which is what the question has asked us to find out.

Option E: Since most public schools are located in rural areas of the county populated primarily by farmers, nearly 30% of students from public high schools choose to pursue farming occupations rather than apply to colleges --> Of course, if it's a county and it has a public school that's inexpensive, most of the people (farmers, essentially) of that county would sent their kids there and once those kids graduate from school, they would be more inclined to takeover their parents occupation rather than opting to go for further studies, which is why the argument in question (if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools) is weak [original question is to find the option that weakens the argument, remember?]

Hence option E is the right answer

Hope this helps If you're still confused, I kindly urge you to read logic guru's explanation too.

According to a recent research study, more than 90% percent of graduates of private high schools in a certain county continue their education in college. By contrast, only 65% of graduates of public high schools subsequently pursue college education. Therefore, if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.

Type - weaken

The argument concludes that children are more likely to attend college if they aresent to private high schools instead of public high schools. The basis for thisclaim is the higher percentage of graduates of private schools pursuing collegeeducation. It is assumed that public schools are inferior to private schools as atraining ground for college. Any statement that provides an alternate explanationfor the fact that public school graduates attend college at lower rates than private school graduates would weaken the argument.
Another way to interpret this question involves the concepts of correlation and causation. The argument’s premise states that private school attendance (vs. public school attendance) is highly correlated with college attendance. The conclusion of the argument is essentially that private school attendance CAUSES college attendance (and therefore, parents ought to send their children to private schools to ensure eventual college attendance). This conclusion depends on the assumption that the causation does NOT work the other way – in other words, that “readiness or desire to attend college” does not influence the choice of public or private school. Any evidence that readiness or desire to attend college DOES influence the choice of public or private school will weaken the argument.


(A) Graduates of private schools typically score higher on standardized tests and other tests of academic achievement. - While higher test scores might increase students' chances of admission to college, they are unrelated to whether students will actually attend college. Even if one could prove that earning higher test scores makes a student more likely to attend college, this statement would not weaken the argument, but rather strengthen it.

(B) While private schools are typically very expensive, attendance of public school is free for the residents of the county. -Since the conclusion centers on the likelihood of attending college, economic and financial considerations are outside the scope of the argument.

(C) In comparison with graduates of private schools, a substantially greater proportion of public school graduates receive need-based financial aid for their college education. -
Since the amount of need-based aid is not directly related to whether a student will attend college, this statement is outside the scope of the argument.

(D) In comparison with private schools, public schools provide more opportunities for student involvement in sports and other athletic activities, which almost always increase the likelihood of students’ acceptance to colleges. - While better athletic opportunities could increase students’ chances of admission to college, they are unrelated to whether students will actually attend college. Also, even though the advantages of public school mentioned in this statement were taken into account by the study, the proportion of graduates of
public schools attending colleges remains substantially lower than the proportion of graduates of private schools.

(E) Since most public schools are located in rural areas of the county populated primarily by farmers, nearly 30% of students from public high schools choose to pursue farming occupations rather than apply to colleges. - This answer choice demonstrates that the difference in the percentage of graduates attending colleges stems not from any advantage
provided by private schools but from the fact that a subset of the graduates of public high schools simply choose to pursue a different career path. In other words, 30% of the graduates of public schools voluntarily choose not to pursue a college education. Yet 65% - out of the 70% of graduates remaining - end up in colleges. This statement indicates extremely high college matriculation rates for students who want to attend college after graduation from public high schools. - Correct

Answer E

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The argument concludes that children are more likely to attend college if they are sent to private high schools instead of public high schools. The basis for this claim is the higher percentage of graduates of private schools pursuing college education. It is assumed that public schools are inferior to private schools as a training ground for college. Any statement that provides an alternate explanation for the fact that public school graduates attend college at lower rates than private school graduates would weaken the argument.

Another way to interpret this question involves the concepts of correlation and causation. The argument’s premise states that private school attendance (vs. public school attendance) is highly correlated with college attendance. The conclusion of the argument is essentially that private school attendance CAUSES college attendance (and therefore, parents ought to send their children to private schools to ensure eventual college attendance). This conclusion depends on the assumption that the causation does NOT work the other way – in other words, that “readiness or desire to attend college” does not influence the choice of public or private school. Any evidence that readiness or desire to attend college DOES influence the choice of public or private school will weaken the argument.

(A) While higher test scores might increase students' chances of admission to college, they are unrelated to whether students will actually attend college. Even if one could prove that earning higher test scores makes a student more likely to attend college, this statement would not weaken the argument, but rather strengthen it.

(B) Since the conclusion centers on the likelihood of attending college, economic and financial considerations are outside the scope of the argument.

(C) Since the amount of need-based aid is not directly related to whether a student will attend college, this statement is outside the scope of the argument.

(D) While better athletic opportunities could increase students’ chances of admission to college, they are unrelated to whether students will actually attend college. Also, even though the advantages of public school mentioned in this statement were taken into account by the study, the proportion of graduates of public schools attending colleges remains substantially lower than the proportion of graduates of private schools.

(E) CORRECT. This answer choice demonstrates that the difference in the percentage of graduates attending colleges stems not from any advantage provided by private schools but from the fact that a subset of the graduates of public high schools simply choose to pursue a different career path. In other words, 30% of the graduates of public schools voluntarily choose not to pursue a college education. Yet 65% - out of the 70% of graduates remaining - end up in colleges. This statement indicates extremely high college matriculation rates for students who want to attend college after graduation from public high schools.

Using the concepts of correlation and causation, this answer choice provides the alternative causation for the correlation observed. In other words, "desire to attend college" is ALREADY lower in the rural areas where public schools happen to be located. According to this evidence, attendance at private or public school is the effect, not the cause, of "desire to attend college."

In option E, it states that because the public schools are located in rural areas of the county populated primarily by farmers, the children choose to go into farming. Doesn't this provide a strong reason for parents to send their children to Private Schools? Then, because the schools are not in the rural areas, the students won't be influenced by the farming opportunity.

Also, please help me understand why D is incorrect.