At Siemans University, 30 percent of varsity athletes receive full sch

D is the answer in my view.

Premise: At Siemans University, 30 percent of varsity athletes receive full scholarships. But their high school GPAs are, on average, a full point below those of non-varsity athletes at this school.
Conclusion: Siemans University should be forced to stop giving unfair advantages to athletes.

So, the author of the argument concludes that Siemans University should be forced to stop giving unfair advantages to athletes because the 30% varsity athletes that are given full scholarship by the school have lower high school GPAs than those of non-varsity athletes at the school.
To weaken the argument above, we need to find an alternative rationale for the decision of the school to offer full scholarships to 30% athletes rather than on the basis of the athlete's high school GPA.

A: Varsity athletes account for only 4 percent of the student body. This is irrelevant. The proportion of the athletes compared to the total student body is irrelevant and does not weaken the argument above. We need a rationale, a basis for their preferential treatment although they have lower high school GPAs.

B: Admissions policies cannot be revised unless ¡t can be proven that the university is acting unfairly. This is also irrelevant to the argument. It does not provide a rationale for the perceived biased towards athletes by the school.

C: Approximately 90% of university orchestra, members of the university debate team and students working on the university newspaper receive full scholarships. This is also irrelevant to the argument and does not weaken the conclusion of the author. Who knows, the 90% who receive full scholarship could have stellar academic records in high school, justifying the argument by the author, or they might not have high GPAs, thereby weakening the argument of the author.

D: Historically, Siemans University has done poorly in sports and is trying to attract better athletic talent. This is correct. So Siemans University is actually offering full scholarships to athletes with lower GPAs to attract these athletes to the school. This weakens the conclusion of the author above because we have come to know through D that the university is not offering full scholarships to the athletes based on their high school GPAs. It is using it as an incentive in order to improve its poor performance in sporting competitions.

E:Varsity athletes’ standardized test scores are lower than the school’s averages. This strengthens conclusion drawn by the author above.

C. Approximately 90% of university orchestra, members of the university debate team and students working on the university newspaper receive full scholarships.

"90%" is 3 times larger than 30%.

=> Choice C

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

(C) This question asks you to weaken the author’s conclusion. The author’s underlying assumption is that athletes have an unfair advantage; his conclusion is that this practice should be stopped. Any statement that shows the assumption to be false, or at least not necessarily true, or that the conclusion does not follow logically, will necessarily weaken the conclusion. Of course, the logical bridge between the assumption and the conclusion is that it is inappropriate — “unfair” — to prefer athletes over non-athletes simply because of their athletic talent. We have to accept that viewpoint (whether we personally agree with it or not) or the question cannot be answered.

Choice (A) is irrelevant; the number of varsity athletes at the school doesn’t impact the argument in any way.

Choice (B) is a bit misleading: though it might suggest that Siemans University will be unable to stop the practice, it does not weaken the conclusion that Siemans University should stop the practice.

It may be very understandable that Siemans University would want to attract better athletes to bolster its sports results (choice (D)), but that doesn’t prevent the wholesale offering of scholarships to athletes from constituting an unfair advantage over the student body as a whole.

Proof that athletes are less academically competent than non-athletes (choice (E)) doesn’t weaken the conclusion if it is the case that the athletes receive, proportionately, more scholarships than non-athletes.

Choice (C) does the most to undermine the assumption by suggesting that Siemans University, in its allocation of scholarships, may prefer students who excel in music and journalism MORE than athletes (because 90 percent get scholarships versus 30 percent for athletes). So the alleged preferences for athletes are secondary to the preferences for other areas.

EducationAisle

Can you throw your two cents between options C and D?

Thanks

Approximately 90% of university orchestra, members of the university debate team and students working on the university newspaper receive full scholarships.

What if these students at least equal to the university's average GPA? then there will be no unfairness..

can someone shed some light on this?

napolean92728

isn't this a poorly worded stem ?

plus the explanation given for (C) assumes that 90% receiving the scholarship do not have stellar academic records

who knows?

they can have the highest GPAs of the entire class at Siemans University
and yet the claim about athletes receiving undue advantage does not crumble

well it is unusual that 30% of athletes compared to 90% of other group receive full scholarship
but it can just be because the 90% of the other group along with extra curricular activities have high GPAs for Siemans to admit them

Hi eakabuah ,
Did you notice the argument's premise states about the varsity athletes and non -varsity ones. But the conclusion straight away jumps to being general.
(i.e) it says don't give unwanted scholarships to athletes.
Hence, its out of scope to say the guys in the answer choices have to biased using superior grades.
So, D is slightly out of reasoning that the author supplies.