It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 06:00

### 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

# For years, the debate over public education reform has

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 381

Kudos [?]: 92 [4], given: 0

For years, the debate over public education reform has [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 May 2006, 23:29
4
KUDOS
23
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

57% (02:08) correct 43% (01:42) wrong based on 1970 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on financing. Many claim that pouring more money into the public schools will improve student performance. However, the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches. Today the schools are organized to benefit their adult employees rather than the students.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

(A) Schools that have instituted “new approaches” attract the best performing students.
(B) Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do.
(C) Studies show that student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the students’ families.
(D) School employees, by an overwhelming margin, said that the system performed well.
(E) Researchers in education have shown that students from school districts with high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 92 [4], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5206

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 May 2006, 04:13
What if the same schools in (B) decided to allocate their expenses for different facilities, like swimming pools or computer labs?

I think the answer should be (E), unless there is a trick relating to "districts." For example, some schools in the same district may be well funded private while others are underfunded public.

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 444

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 May 2006, 04:31
GMATT73 wrote:
What if the same schools in (B) decided to allocate their expenses for different facilities, like swimming pools or computer labs?

I think the answer should be (E), unless there is a trick relating to "districts." For example, some schools in the same district may be well funded private while others are underfunded public.

Nope

The issue here is not whether additional funding can improve students' scores( performance is not necessarily equal to scores, btw), but whether old plain ideas can still be used to improve their performance. B shows this clearly , while E is way out of scope.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1338

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 May 2006, 06:30
i go with C.

if student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the studentsâ€™ families, then spending more money, new ideas and new approaches do not increase the performance of the students.

Quote:
The issue here is not whether additional funding can improve students' scores( performance is not necessarily equal to scores, btw), but whether old plain ideas can still be used to improve their
performance. B shows this clearly, while E is way out of scope.

deowl,
i agree with you that the issue here is not whether additional funding can improve students' scores but how do you say "play ground" as old plain ideas?

Last edited by Professor on 07 May 2006, 06:53, edited 2 times in total.

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 25

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

### Show Tags

07 May 2006, 06:34
I will go with E.

Point 1: Studentâ€™s performance in standardized tests can be taken as measure for schoolâ€™s performance.
Point 2: Even though if more financing is done and the school is in â€œlower per-capitaâ€

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

VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1338

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 May 2006, 06:55
if spending increases the performance of the student, it doesnot weakens the argument... so E doesnot work as well.

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 444

Kudos [?]: 8 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 May 2006, 07:00
1
KUDOS
Professor wrote:
i go with C.

if student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the studentsâ€™ families, then spending more money, new ideas and new approaches do not increase the performance of the students.

Prof.

The social status of a particular person corresponds most directly with
the social status of his family. Would you conclude from this assertion that nothing can be done to improve one's social status if he was born in poor family?

Kudos [?]: 8 [1], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 444

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 May 2006, 07:13
Professor wrote:
deowl,
i agree with you that the issue here is not whether additional funding can improve students' scores but how do you say "play ground" as old plain ideas?

Since there are schools that have a playground, this idea cannot be considered a new one.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 25

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

### Show Tags

07 May 2006, 07:16
I don't think choice E implies â€œspending increases the performance of the studentâ€

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 381

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 May 2006, 08:18
OA is E, Though I selected B and I was not debating between B and E,

I considered E weaker because if you analyze

"Researchers in education have shown that students from school districts with high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests."

It does not say School has higher spending, higher per-capita income may mean nothing in cases such as school district has lower % of family income devoted to school. So basically we have to assume tha higher per-capita goes after school budget!

But if you look at B

Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do.

I can weakly infer, that there is one to one relationship between having plyaground and financial capabilities of school...

Though I believe this is bad question, because its tough to pick between B and E and I hope that in real exam we will have solid question compare to this one!

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 523

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

For years, the debate over public education reform has [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 May 2007, 21:20
For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on financing. Many claim that pouring more money into the public schools will improve student performance. However, the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches. Today the schools are organized to benefit their adult employees rather than the students.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

A. Schools that have instituted “new approaches” attract the best performing students.
B. Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do.
C. Studies show that student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the students’ families.
D. School employees, by an overwhelming margin, said that the system performed well.
E. Researchers in education have shown that students from school districts with high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests.

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 327

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 May 2007, 02:26
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Juaz wrote:
OA is E.
Don't know why I got confused.

Outside Claim: Pouring more money into the public schools will improve student performance.

Author Claim: Schools are organized to benefit adult employees rather than the students.

Conclusion: the only way to fix our school systems is (1) inject new ideas (2) new approaches.

WEAKEN?

A. Schools that have instituted “new approaches” attract the best performing students.
strengthens outside claim
B. Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do.
second best answer? wrong because playgrounds don't benefit schools employees?
C. Studies show that student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the students’ families.
out of scope!
D. School employees, by an overwhelming margin, said that the system performed well.
out of scope
E. Researchers in education have shown that students from school districts with high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests.
yes, weakens the claim that into pouring money has no use for performance!

I prefer (E) as well because it is the most obvious, but why exactly is (B) wrong? cheers

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 168

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 15

WE 1: 4 years Software Product Development
WE 2: 3 years ERP Consulting
For years, the debate over public education reform has [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2010, 20:15
For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on financing. Many claim that pouring more money into the public schools will improve student performance. However, the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches. Today the schools are organized to benefit their adult employees rather than the students.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

> Schools that have instituted “new approaches” attract the best performing students.
> Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do.
> Studies show that student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the students’ families.
> School employees, by an overwhelming margin, said that the system performed well.
> Researchers in education have shown that students from school districts with high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
If students from school districts with high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests, then the assumption that higher spending does not improve school systems may be wrong.

_________________

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 15

Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 168

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 15

WE 1: 4 years Software Product Development
WE 2: 3 years ERP Consulting

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2010, 20:17
My issue with the OA is that how can one assume that school districts with high per-capita spending spend more money on schools. I think high per-capita spending would refer to people in that district spending money and not the school authorities of that district.

_________________

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 15

Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 192

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2010, 06:41
I went for A,
I thought if application of new approaches lead into attracting better students, it should not be called a reform, 'cause I feel reform is improving existing students!
Am I off topic ? :D

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 13

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 184

Kudos [?]: 263 [5], given: 7

Schools: MBA, Thunderbird School of Global Management / BA, Wesleyan University

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2010, 19:41
5
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
arundas,

I absolutely understand where you're coming from, but let's break this down:

The conclusion here is that new ideas are the ONLY way to fix the school system. The best way to weaken a conclusion that has the word "ONLY" in it is to identify any other way of fixing the school system. So we're looking for an alternative way to fix the system:

A: This strengthens the idea that new ideas attract better students and thus would in theory improve overall. So this is actually the opposite of what we're looking for.
B: This says outdoor playgrounds hurt performance. This doesn't say anything about how to fix schools; it only says installing playgrounds has the opposite effect.
C: This weakens the conclusion because it provides an alternate explanation for why some school districts do better than others. The reason it doesn't really provide an alternative explanation to the "new ideas" theory is that you can't really fix the school system by having more educated parents.
D: This is totally irrelevant.
E: This is sort of similar to C. I would argue that "districts with high per-capita spending" means the districts themselves spend a lot of money on the students, not that the people who live in that district spend a lot of money. So we can actually say that if this is true, then school districts can choose to spend more money and thus achieve better results.

Does this help?
_________________

Brett Beach-Kimball | Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Kudos [?]: 263 [5], given: 7

Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 168

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 15

WE 1: 4 years Software Product Development
WE 2: 3 years ERP Consulting

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2010, 19:59
BKimball wrote:
arundas,

I absolutely understand where you're coming from, but let's break this down:

The conclusion here is that new ideas are the ONLY way to fix the school system. The best way to weaken a conclusion that has the word "ONLY" in it is to identify any other way of fixing the school system. So we're looking for an alternative way to fix the system:

A: This strengthens the idea that new ideas attract better students and thus would in theory improve overall. So this is actually the opposite of what we're looking for.
B: This says outdoor playgrounds hurt performance. This doesn't say anything about how to fix schools; it only says installing playgrounds has the opposite effect.
C: This weakens the conclusion because it provides an alternate explanation for why some school districts do better than others. The reason it doesn't really provide an alternative explanation to the "new ideas" theory is that you can't really fix the school system by having more educated parents.
D: This is totally irrelevant.
E: This is sort of similar to C. I would argue that "districts with high per-capita spending" means the districts themselves spend a lot of money on the students, not that the people who live in that district spend a lot of money. So we can actually say that if this is true, then school districts can choose to spend more money and thus achieve better results.

Does this help?

Thanks for responding. I have a question below on your explanation.

Your explanation for not picking B is "This says outdoor playgrounds hurt performance.". But the option in the question stem is Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do.

My interpretation of option B was that an outside playground leads to improved student performance and hence schools which don't have it need to have one. And acquiring a playground means having more finance. As this has nothing to do with new ideas or approaches I picked this as an answer.

cheers
_________________

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 15

Manager
Status: Keep fighting!
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 220

Kudos [?]: 535 [0], given: 104

WE 1: 2+ years - Programming
WE 2: 3+ years - Product developement,
WE 3: 2+ years - Program management

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2010, 20:32
Arundas, I think you took the route of thinking that playgrounds necessarily are expensive thing and hence need money and therefore will improve student performance. While it is very logical to think that way it relies on your knowledge of how expensive a playground is. this is a classic test mistake called the "conjecture" choice. It relies on your info to answer questions. We should never pick such things and pick only choices that have the information as given in the question. Nothing outside.

Hope it helps.

Kudos [?]: 535 [0], given: 104

Intern
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 14

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

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2010, 14:02
[E] sounds more logical, so I go with it.

I assume that the reason some of you are going with [B] is for the case where "outside playgrounds" refer to a well funded school, hence weakens the argument. Please correct me if my assumption is wrong.
There can be schools with no outdoor playground but with many indoor sport facilities, hence both these categories of schools can be equally funded.

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 380

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 17

Location: Chicago, IL

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2010, 14:21
C and E are the best contesntants out of all. However, I go with E because this choice way more directly attacks the conclusion than does C. So, E is the outright winner
_________________

Hard work is the main determinant of success

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 17

Re: public education reform   [#permalink] 18 Oct 2010, 14:21

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 52 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# For years, the debate over public education reform has

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.