For one academic year all the students at a high school were observed.

Hypothesis is studying more enhances one's chances of getting a higher score. Paradox is students who spent the most time studying did not earn grades as high as did many students who studied less.

But does that mean that studying more is the only factor involved for someone to score high. Well, we cannot assume so.
May be person-X is more intelligent and his 1 hour of study gains him as much score as person Y gets by studying 2 hours.
Therefore, X can study less than Y yet his scores will be better than that of person Y.

Best way to test the hypothesis would be to compare "x with x" and not "X with Y". Answer choice C does exactly the same and proves that studying more helps to score more.

Hea234ven:

Paradox is about grades in all subjects:
1. high studies -> high grades
2. Though more study yet less grades
Researchers support 1

Now we need to give reasoning for 1
So there has to an explanation which supports both 1 and 2

Now think what if an student studies Maths for more number of hours and has got improved grades in Maths but he contributed less time in English and Science, hence less marks in those subjects. As a result, overall improvement of grades wasn't much (which is 2)

That is what Choice C says, in each course a student studied had shown improvement.
Hence C

is it really a paradoxical question if yes then how answer C resolve the paradox???

Conclusion: More studying leads to higher grades. Premise: Students who studied more did not outperform students who didnt study as much.
Issue: Argument assumes that studying more would lead to students being the highest performers, and not just show improvement.

(A) The students who spent the most time studying earned higher grades than did some students who studied for less time than the average.
(B) The students tended to get slightly lower grades as the academic year progressed.
(C) In each course, the more a student studied, the better his or her grade was in that course.
--> Option proves that students who studied more improved their grades, even if they werent necessarily highest performers
(D) The students who spent the least time studying tended to be students with no more than average involvement in extracurricular activities.
(E) Students who spent more time studying understood the course material better than other students did.

This looks like a question to resolve a paradox. Let us analyze the stimulus:

Hypothesis: Studying more increased a student’s chances of earning a higher grade.

Result of study: The students who spent the most time studying did not earn grades as high as did many students who studied less.

Conclusion: The results of the observation supported the initial hypothesis.

The paradox is that even though the study showed that between students, more studying did not always result in better grades, the researchers concluded that the initial hypothesis was correct. One point which comes to mind is that the initial hypothesis talks about individual students getting better grades by studying more, while the results only talk about performance across different students. With this in mind, we can look at the options that support the hypothesis.

(A) The students who spent the most time studying earned higher grades than did some students who studied for less time than the average. The problem with this is two fold. This too talks about performance across different students. Also, it only compares the performance of those who spent the most time studying with some other students. Hence this does not support our initial hypothesis. Eliminate.

(B) The students tended to get slightly lower grades as the academic year progressed. The initial hypothesis has nothing to do with chronological grades. Eliminate.

(C) In each course, the more a student studied, the better his or her grade was in that course. Correct answer. This states that for an individual student, more studying translates to better grades. It also reconciles the other result mentioned in the stimulus - while an individual student may better his/her grades by studying more, it may not always result in improved performance compared to other students.

(D) The students who spent the least time studying tended to be students with no more than average involvement in extracurricular activities. The initial hypothesis has nothing to do with extracurricular activities. Eliminate.

(E) Students who spent more time studying understood the course material better than other students did. This option does not talk about grades in any way, which is a critical component of the initial hypothesis. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

(A) The students who spent the most time studying earned higher grades than did some students who studied for less time than the average. - this contradicts what's mentioned in the passage.
(B) The students tended to get slightly lower grades as the academic year progressed. - this does not help support the hypothesis presented in the passage.
(C) In each course, the more a student studied, the better his or her grade was in that course. - this directly supports the hypothesis presented in the passage. Hence, (C) is the right answer choice.
(D) The students who spent the least time studying tended to be students with no more than average involvement in extracurricular activities. - irrelevant.
(E) Students who spent more time studying understood the course material better than other students did. - ''understanding'' a course material ''better'' does not guarantee receiving a higher grade. what if a student is able to understand better but has difficulties in translating his thoughts into answers that required for the tests?

For one academic year all the students at a high school were observed. The aim was to test the hypothesis that studying more increased a student’s chances of earning a higher grade. It turned out that the students who spent the most time studying did not earn grades as high as did many students who studied less. Nonetheless, the researchers concluded that the results of the observation supported the initial hypothesis.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the researchers drew the conclusion described above?

(A) The students who spent the most time studying earned higher grades than did some students who studied for less time than the average. - WRONG. Irrelevant sampling doesn't help support.
(B) The students tended to get slightly lower grades as the academic year progressed. - WRONG. Exactly the opposite to what we need.
(C) In each course, the more a student studied, the better his or her grade was in that course. - CORRECT. A bit philosophical aspect but a true one. The comparison was with self scores.
(D) The students who spent the least time studying tended to be students with no more than average involvement in extracurricular activities. - WRONG. ECA is irrelevant.
(E) Students who spent more time studying understood the course material better than other students did. - WRONG. Understanding the course material does helps to improve but did students really improved. The improvement aspect is not touched upon thus this needs further assumption that understnading better a subject is directly proportional to getting higher grade.

Answer C.

KarishmaB please could you help me understand (C) and (E). I posted my thoughts on this argument below, please correct me if I am wrong

To prove: Studying more leads to increasing a student's chance of earning higher grades."

The experiment showed: "students who spent most time studying did not earn grades as high as did many students who studied less"

Conclusion: Studying more still leads to increased chances of getting higher grades.

One gap that comes to my notice is: The argument wants to prove that studying more leads to higher grades. But the premise talks about spending "more time". One could spend 10hrs and yet cover just one page of a book while another student could study for 2hours and complete an entire chapter.

Question: Strengthen the conclusion


The argument clearly states that students who spent the most time studying did not earn grades as high as did many students who studied less. So we could definitely have a case that these students must have outperformed a few of the students who studied less. Find (A) to be irrelevant


We have some general information about ALL the students. This fact doesn't seem to help us in any way and hence I find (B) irrelevant too


This choice talks about how much one studies and not how long does one study. The more one studies the higher grades one gets. This definitely strengthens the conclusion


This choice talks about an irrelevant fact (extracurricular activities) of "students who spend the least time studying"


First I thought that if these students understood the course material better they would indeed increase their chances of scoring a higher grade BUT even if a student understands one page of the book better than some student who actually completes the entire book, doesn't mean that the student (who understood the material better) increase his/her chances of scoring.

Students were observed.
Observation: Students who spent most time studying did not earn grades as high as did others who studied less (note that as per the argument "more time studying" = "more studying") Hoozan

Conclusion: Studying more increased a student’s chances of earning a higher grade.

This is a paradox question. We need to explain why researchers could have concluded what they did. As per observations, students who spent most time did not get the highest grades. Others who studied for less time got the highest grades. But still, the researchers concluded that studying more increases chances of a higher grades.

My first thought here was that 'higher' relative to what? I would think that more studying would lead to higher grades than what they would have got with less studying. A person with a very high IQ could spend less time and still get an even higher grade. e.g. If Andy studies for 2 hrs a day, he gets B-. If he studies for 3 hrs a day, he gets B+. But Bob studies for only 1 hr a day and still gets A+.
This would be consistent with the argument. Let's look at what the options have.

(A) The students who spent the most time studying earned higher grades than did some students who studied for less time than the average.

Doesn't explain the unexpected conclusion of the researchers. The students who spent the most time studying earned lower grades than did some students who studied for less time (the argument tells us). The students who spent the most time studying earned higher grades than did some students who studied for less time (this option tells us). Looks like time and grades don't have a strong connection. Why researchers concluded what they did, we cannot say.

(B) The students tended to get slightly lower grades as the academic year progressed.

Irrelevant

(C) In each course, the more a student studied, the better his or her grade was in that course.

This can explain the conclusion. It says the more one studies a course, the higher his grade in that course. The comparison of the student is with himself - when he studies less vs when he studies more. This leads to the conclusion while the observation is still viable.

(D) The students who spent the least time studying tended to be students with no more than average involvement in extracurricular activities.
Irrelevant

(E) Students who spent more time studying understood the course material better than other students did.

Doesn't explain the paradox. If more time means more understanding, then these students should have got the highest grades.

Answer (C)

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.