According to the new school district policy, only teachers that have

Would really appreciate it if anyone could explain the solution to this problem?

Inten21

According to the new school district policy, only teachers that have the floors can have food in their classrooms.-- Only those assigned the tiled floored classrooms can have food in their classrooms.
All of the classrooms in the new wing of the high school have tiled floors. However, most of the school's classrooms are still carpeted.---most are carpeted...not tiled floors
Therefore, teachers who like to eat their lunches in their classrooms should be offered classrooms in the new wing of the high school.--- includes the teachers that are assigned the carpeted floors therefore bringing in a need for equality to eat liberally in the classroom irrespective of whether you are initially assigned to a ''carpeted one'' or ''a tile floored' one''.

The 'therefore' part is a conclusion of this argument. 'D' is the assumption answer choice that acts as a bridge to this conclusion.

Hope this helps.
And if it did, click KUDOS !

Regards

ucb2k7

Hi ucb2k7

D says that teachers can eat in THEIR classrooms. What is the difference between teachers'(their) classroom & teachers' assigned classrooms. The word "their" makes D confusing hence I eliminated.

Had it been as below, it would have been correct.

"d) The district policy should allow all teachers who want to eat in ANY classrooms classroom an equal opportunity to do so, regardless of original classroom assignments."


Pls correct if I am wrong.

Therefore, teachers who like to eat their lunches in their classrooms should be offered

see the emphasis ? " teachers ...should " which means every teacher should be treated equally in this matter

With assumption based CR questions, one thing that the GMAT does to amp up the difficulty is to obfuscate the overall conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that teachers who would like to eat lunch in class should be assigned tiled classes. What the question has done with a subtle language shift is that it has put the onus on the school to cater to these teachers if possible. This is not indicated in premises, so we need an assumption that helps bridge the gap.

A - if A is true, it actually makes the conclusion less viable
B - So what? Makes no sense in the context
C - This actively attacks one of the premises, and if true, makes the conclusion less viable
D - This option actively makes the link between the rules about eating and whose responsibility it is to ensure positive outcomes within the framework.
E - This is a trap answer. Maybe it is something the district should do, but it only reiterates the goal of the first premise (that only teachers in tiled classrooms can eat food in class). It being true or not doesn't impact the argument in any way whatsoever.

Remember that when looking to find the assumption, the assumption being true makes the argument possible. The assumption, if false, should make the argument invalid

Pls explain how negation of D weakens the concl

VeritasKarishma - If I negate B, argument gets destroyed, as it will say only teachers with tiled classroom will have lunch in their classrooms. No other teacher will get opportunity to have lunch in classroom even if he or she wants to.
Can you please explain why B is wrong.

Only teachers that have tiled floors can have food in their classrooms.
All of the classrooms in the new wing of the high school have tiled floors.
However, most of the school's classrooms are still carpeted.

Conclusion: Teachers who like to eat their lunches in their classrooms should be offered classrooms in the new wing of the high school.

We want an assumption that will allow the conclusion to be properly drawn. That is, we need the option that will make the conclusion hold. What will help us establish the conclusion? Teachers can have food only if they have attuned classroom. New wing has tiled classrooms but rest are carpeted (accounting for most of the classrooms). If we say that teachers who want to eat in their classrooms should be able to, then it makes sense to conclude that these teachers should be offered classrooms in the new wing.


(A) Teachers in the new wing who eat their lunches in the cafeteria should keep their assigned classrooms

Not correct.

(B) Teachers with tiled classrooms should not eat in their classrooms, even though the new district policy permits them to do so.

This is against our conclusion. Hence this cannot help make our conclusion valid.

(C) Teachers with carpeted classrooms should be allowed to eat in their classrooms

No, we are saying that teachers who want to eat in classrooms should be given the new tiled classrooms.

(D) The district policy should allow all teachers who want to eat in their classrooms an equal opportunity to do so, regardless of original classroom assignments.

Correct. This says that the policy should allow all teachers to have an equal opportunity to eat in the classroom. If this stands, then we can say that those who want to eat in the classroom should be given the new tiled classrooms so that they can eat there (as per the policy that they can eat in tiled classrooms only)

(E) The district policy should minimize potential damage to school property, such as that caused by food stains in carpet.

It does. Perhaps that is why eating in carpeted classrooms is not allowed.

Answer (D)

Note that this question is asking for the option which helps draw the conclusion properly. It is not looking for a necessary premise but a sufficient premise. Hence negation does not work on it.

Hey VeritasKarishma - Could you please expound on the necessary premise and sufficient premise? Also, how to discern this from questions' language?

As far as GMAT is concerned, 'assumptions' are missing necessary premises.

"assumption that enables the conclusion above to be properly drawn" - means a sufficient assumption is an LSAT concept.

Question Prompt: According to the new school district policy, only teachers that have tiled floors can have food in their classrooms. All of the classrooms in the new wing of the high school have tiled floors. However, most of the school's classrooms are still carpeted. Therefore, teachers who like to eat their lunches in their classrooms should be offered classrooms in the new wing of the high school.
Which of the following is an assumption that enables the conclusion above to be properly drawn?

(A) Teachers in the new wing who eat their lunches in the cafeteria should keep their assigned classrooms

(B) Teachers with tiled classrooms should not eat in their classrooms, even though the new district policy permits them to do so.

(C) Teachers with carpeted classrooms should be allowed to eat in their classrooms

(D) The district policy should allow all teachers who want to eat in their classrooms an equal opportunity to do so, regardless of original classroom assignments.

(E) The district policy should minimize potential damage to school property, such as that caused by food stains in carpet.



Dissect the argument:

Premises:
1. only teachers that have tiled floors can have food in their classrooms
2. New wing classrooms have tiles floors
3. Most other classrooms are carpeted

Conclusion:
Teachers who like to eat their lunches in their classrooms should be offered classrooms in the new wing of the high school.
Note that the argument vouches that the teachers, who like to eat in their classrooms, should be 'offered' classrooms in the new wing.

This indicates that the author of the argument is vouching for equal opportunity for all teachers to decide where they want to have their lunch. And hence, they should be offered classrooms with tiled floors (thereby giving them the option to choose whether they want to have their lunch in their classroom). Note that the argument doesn't say that these teachers should be given classrooms with tiled floors. That would have a different meaning altogether.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.