It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 17:55

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Because addictive drugs are phsyically harmful, their use by

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 104

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2005, 06:37
gmataquaguy wrote:
High School students who feel that they are not succeeding in school often drop out before graduating and go to work. Last year, however, the city's high school dropout rate was significantly lower than the previous year's rate. This is encouraging evidence that the program instituted two years ago to improve the morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.

Which of the following if true about the last year, most seriously wekanes the argument?

A) There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city
B) The morale of students who dropped out of high school had been low even before they reached high school
C) As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out
D) High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employmen
E) The antidropout program was primarily aimed at improving students' morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates

OK, so we need something to tackle the conclusion that dropout rates are lower, because the program has been successful.

I think A gives us such a something. Dropout rates are not lower, because the program is a hit, but because the students do not have an alternative to going to school. Rising unemployment discourages them to quit school, because they won't have anything to do afterwards.

B is not really relevant to the argument.

For D to work, we have to make an assumption that students will prefer getting some help in their job search. The passage just says "they drop out and go to work", so we don't have an indication that the students need any help.

I think E supports the conclusion rather than weaken it.

It is generally a close call between A and D. I think A is correct.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 212

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2005, 08:23
gmataquaguy wrote:
I'll post another question [I know posting 2 different questions within the same thread is a No No, but i want to drive home a point and this question will help us better understand AC D in the context of the argument].

For those of you who chose E [over D], and anyone else too, could you please try the following question:

High School students who feel that they are not succeeding in school often drop out before graduating and go to work. Last year, however, the city's high school dropout rate was significantly lower than the previous year's rate. This is encouraging evidence that the program instituted two years ago to improve the morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.

Which of the following if true about the last year, most seriously wekanes the argument?

A) There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city
B) The morale of students who dropped out of high school had been low even before they reached high school
C) As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out
D) High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employmen
E) The antidropout program was primarily aimed at improving students' morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates

A cleary states that the decrease in dropout is not because of the program but because of recession

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Posts: 236

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2005, 08:33
E

attacks the foundation of the argument.

D

provides an alternate reason for the decrase in unemployment.

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 257

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Location: Las Vegas, NV

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2005, 08:43
I'd have to go with A.

The author concludes that the program to increase morale is working to retain students. We have to find another reason why the students who would drop out are now staying in school. Orignally, the students were dropping out of school to go to work but if there aren't many jobs available then they wouldn't have a reason to go. Choice A is the only one that links the two together.

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 373

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2005, 08:55
gmataquaguy wrote:
High School students who feel that they are not succeeding in school often drop out before graduating and go to work. Last year, however, the city's high school dropout rate was significantly lower than the previous year's rate. This is encouraging evidence that the program instituted two years ago to improve the morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.

Which of the following if true about the last year, most seriously wekanes the argument?

A) There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city
B) The morale of students who dropped out of high school had been low even before they reached high school
C) As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out
D) High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employment
E) The antidropout program was primarily aimed at improving students' morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates

I'll go for A. The premise here is that dropouts can get jobs. The argument establishes a causal connection between the new program and the lowering of dropout rates. The point that weakens the argument most therefore is one that dispells the causal connection best.

A says that there is another, more plausible cause for the lowering of dropout rates.

D is not correct because the fact that graduates are finding it easier to get jobs does not make it easy for dropouts to get jobs.

For instance, assume A and D are both true. A student can be in the 9th grade and not chose to dropout. However, if the market picks up when he is in 10th grade, he is still likely to dro out despite the fact that graduates get help in getting jobs.

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Posts: 236

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2005, 09:39
I misread the stem, clearly. The argument is about decrease in dropout rate and not about increase in employment.

Should be A.

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2231

Kudos [?]: 376 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2005, 20:06
Premise1: Addictive drugs are justifiably prohibited because they are physically harmful.
Premise2: Many things in sports are not prohibited because they are unnatural (and therefore nothing should be prohibited on the basis of being unatural).
Premise3: We should attend to problems that will lead to unnecessary death or injuries (i.e, are physically harmful).
Conclusion: The use of nonaddictive drugs by atheletes should not be prohibited.

The link from the premises to the conclusion is this: Nonaddictive drugs are not physically harmful, even if they may be regard as unnatural.

So to weaken this argument would be to point out that nonaddictive drugs can actually be physically harmful.

_________________

Keep on asking, and it will be given you;
keep on seeking, and you will find;
keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you.

Kudos [?]: 376 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 698

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2005, 15:38
gmataquaguy wrote:
I'll post another question [I know posting 2 different questions within the same thread is a No No, but i want to drive home a point and this question will help us better understand AC D in the context of the argument].

For those of you who chose E [over D], and anyone else too, could you please try the following question:

High School students who feel that they are not succeeding in school often drop out before graduating and go to work. Last year, however, the city's high school dropout rate was significantly lower than the previous year's rate. This is encouraging evidence that the program instituted two years ago to improve the morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.

Which of the following if true about the last year, most seriously wekanes the argument?

A) There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city
B) The morale of students who dropped out of high school had been low even before they reached high school
C) As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out
D) High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employmen
E) The antidropout program was primarily aimed at improving students' morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates

The OA is A - its a causal argument - an alternative reason is provided for why its plausible for the students to stay in school. Its not the program but the recession. So lets apply the same analogy to the previous question [I'd like some clarification from those folks who chose E over D in the orginal post about addictive drugs].

For "addictive drug" passage, why cant the causal argument be applied here. THe author is likening "asprinins" to other unnatural stuff like equipment. AC D provides a reason why this analogy isnt accurate. So by doing so wouldnt AC D provide "an alternative" for why his conclusion is wrong? The underlying reason being: Dont equate aspirin to shoes, etc and therefore your conclusion is wrong? Why is the causal aspect not applicable here?

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 23

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2005, 13:04
gmataquaguy wrote:
For "addictive drug" passage, why cant the causal argument be applied here. THe author is likening "asprinins" to other unnatural stuff like equipment. AC D provides a reason why this analogy isnt accurate. So by doing so wouldnt AC D provide "an alternative" for why his conclusion is wrong? The underlying reason being: Dont equate aspirin to shoes, etc and therefore your conclusion is wrong? Why is the causal aspect not applicable here?

The causal argument can be applied here, but choice E directly refutes his asertion by referring back to the first sentence (it even uses the same terminology).

D is a possible choice, but it isn't the best choice.
_________________

Just Do it

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

25 Aug 2005, 13:04

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 29 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by