GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 16 Jan 2019, 20:56

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
  • The winning strategy for a high GRE score

     January 17, 2019

     January 17, 2019

     08:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Learn the winning strategy for a high GRE score — what do people who reach a high score do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we've collected from over 50,000 students who used examPAL.
  • Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

     January 19, 2019

     January 19, 2019

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.

For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 17 Dec 2018, 07:22
7
29
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (02:03) correct 39% (01:40) wrong based on 2186 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.

Originally posted by chiragr on 06 May 2006, 22:29.
Last edited by Bunuel on 17 Dec 2018, 07:22, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 180
Schools: MBA, Thunderbird School of Global Management / BA, Wesleyan University
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2010, 18:41
7
3
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

General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2006, 07:18
1
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!
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 307
For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 May 2007, 01:26
1
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
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: ISB, Hyderabad
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 134
WE 1: 4 years Software Product Development
WE 2: 3 years ERP Consulting
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Oct 2010, 19:17
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.

Your thoughts are most welcome.
_________________

-AD

GMAT Tutor
avatar
S
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1323
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Oct 2010, 16:02
3
arundas wrote:
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.


I have a couple of issues with this question. It asks us what 'most weakens the argument'. Well, there is no 'argument'. There is just a claim: "the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas". That's not an argument, in the sense that word is used in logic (it's not a logical deduction from a set of premises); it's just an unsubstantiated opinion. It's hard to know how to weaken an 'argument' that isn't an argument in the first place.

I also dislike answer E here, though I prefer it to the other answer choices. First it's unclear just what is meant by 'per capita spending'; does this mean dollars spent per student, or tax dollars spent on education per person in the district? In any case, E contains a kind of overly simplistic logic that real GMAT CR questions normally ask you to attack. That higher spending districts get better test scores is not, in and of itself, reason to think that spending improves test scores. That's a correlation/causation fallacy. There may easily be, for example, sample bias at work here. Those districts which can afford to spend the most are very possibly the wealthiest districts, and that may be the reason for higher test scores; perhaps students in poorer districts need to work part-time jobs and can't focus on their studies, or perhaps those in poorer districts aren't properly nourished and that affects their academic performance, just to list two of a myriad of possibilities here. It may not be the educational spending itself that is producing the better results.

Those problems with the question aside, I don't see how any of the answers A-D could be good here, so E it is, but I don't care for the question at all.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Status: Private GMAT Tutor
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Posts: 122
Location: India
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: IIMA (A)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Premium Member
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Nov 2012, 08:12
2
arundas wrote:
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.
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.


Very interesting discussion going on here. Let me add my two cents to it. Let's first dissect the passage, line by line:
For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on financing - It's a background statement for the passage. It gives a background that a debate has centered on financing. Then, the passage given two counter-views of the debate.

Many claim that pouring more money into the public schools will improve student performance. - This is view of one side of the debate.

However, the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches. - This is view of other side of the debate. The author is on this side of the debate. The use of word "only" makes this view completely counter to the other view. Presence of "only" means that this view of the debate means two things: new ideas and new approaches are needed to fix the system and pouring of money "cannot" fix the school systems.

Today the schools are organized to benefit their adult employees rather than the students. - This opinion is used to mean that the current school systems are not doing what they are supposed to be doing and thus, they need a fix. In addition, "... benefit their adult employees rather..." could also mean that the way (financial) resources are used currently is benefiting employees rather than the students. Thus, this opinion would also support the viewpoint that putting more resources will not help; new ideas and approaches are required.

The question asks us to find an option which most weakens the argument. But what is the argument here?
From our above understanding, the argument is like:
Conclusion (Claim): new ideas and new approaches are needed to fix the system and pouring of money "cannot" fix the school systems.
Premise (supporting opinion): the way (financial) resources are used currently is benefiting employees rather than the students

Now, let's look at each of the options:
A. Schools that have instituted “new approaches” attract the best performing students. - Supports the conclusion rather than weakening it.
B. Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do. - It means that students with outside playgrounds have higher level of student performance than schools that do not. So, if the absence of outside playgrounds in schools is due to lack of funds, then putting more financial resources will help them to build playgrounds and thus, achieve higher level of performance. So, by making an assumption (that the absence of outside playgrounds in schools is due to lack of funds), this statement works as a weakener.
C. Studies show that student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the students’ families. - Generally saying, education of students's families is not being talked in the passage. Even if this statement is considered correct, it could mean two things in different scenarios:
1. Scenario One: If education of families can't be changed - In this case, we can't really do anything to improve student performance, which makes the whole debate irrelevant.
2. Scenario Two: If education of families can be changed - In this case, we can work on educating the families while simultaneously working with students. Doing such a thing could be characterized as a "new idea", which would support the given argument.
Thus, this statement doesn't weaken the argument.

D. School employees, by an overwhelming margin, said that the system performed well. - This is irrelevant. Opinion of school employees on the argument is irrelevant.
E. Researchers in education have shown that students from school districts with high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests. - If higher capita spending means higher spending per student and if higher scores on standardized tests means higher performance, then this statement weakens our conclusion that pouring of money cannot fix the system. So, by making these assumptions, this statement can act as a weakener.

From the analysis above, we see that both options B and E can be weakeners, if we make the required assumptions. However, we need to select the options which weakens the argument the most. Therefore, we need to find the stronger weakener of these two.

A strong weakener is one which weakens the argument without making any assumptions. In this case, both the statement make assumptions. The stronger of the two would be the one whose assumptions are easy to justify within the context of the argument.

In this case, I think assumptions for option E are easier to justify:
- Assumption 1: Since we are primarily talking about public finance, per capita spending should refer to spending per student by the public machinery, rather than spending per individual
- Assumption 2: Generally whenever performances are measured and compared, they are through standardized tests. Thus, higher scores on standardized tests should mean higher performance, in this context.

In case of option B, absence of outside playgrounds could be due to reasons other than financial ones. It's actually not easy to justify that the only reason for absence of playgrounds would be lack of financial resources.

Thus, the correct option should be E.

Cheers,
CJ
_________________

Website: http://www.GMATwithCJ.com

My articles:
Detailed Solutions to all SC questions in OG 2019, OG 2018,and OG 2017
My experience with GMAT (Score 780) and My analysis of my ESR
Three pillars of a successful GMAT strategy
Critical Reasoning and The Life of a GMAT Student
The 'Although' Misconception
Dear GMAT Aspirant, You need not swim against the tide

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 222
Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Feb 2013, 02:03
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. Strengthener for only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches

(B)Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do.OFS

(C)Studies show that student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the students’ families. OFS

(D)School employees, by an overwhelming margin, said that the system performed well. Strengthener. for schools are organized to benefit their adult employees

(E)Researchers in education have shown that students from school districts with high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests. This implies money can improve the student performance. Weakener for : only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches
_________________

YOU CAN, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Feb 2011
Posts: 89
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 11 Mar 2013, 08:30
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.


This was another tough CR for me. I chose C but on reading the answer was a little surprised.
Key question I would ask. What is the conclusion in this prompt? For me it was the "However" statement but the OA would indicate otherwise

Could someone do a premise conclusion breakdown of this and really go through there thought process to reaching the OA?
_________________

We appreciate your kudos'


Originally posted by manimgoindowndown on 11 Mar 2013, 08:10.
Last edited by manimgoindowndown on 11 Mar 2013, 08:30, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 61
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Sep 2013, 02:55
The correct answer is E. The conclusion is that the only way to fix our school
systems is to inject new ideas and approaches. The author rejects the notion that
spending more money can improve education. We are asked to weaken this
argument.
Choice A states only that students that perform highly already are attracted to
schools with new approaches. This does not weaken the argument. Incorrect.
Choice B states that schools with playgrounds have better students than schools
without them. This is irrelevant. Incorrect.
Choice C states that student performance corresponds closely with the level of
their family's education. This does not address the issue of spending. Incorrect.
Choice D states that school employees are generally pleased with the school
system. This does not address the core of the argument: that money does not
improve student performance.
Choice E states that students from schools that spend more money tend to
perform better on standardized tests. This suggests that the claim that money
does not improve performance may be wrong. Correct.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1114
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Nov 2015, 06:42
However, the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches.

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

(A) Schools that have instituted “new approaches” attract the best performing students.......favors conclusion
(B) Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do..........slightly deviated from intended conclusion weakener even if we assume playground involves investment.
(C) Studies show that student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the students’ families...........completely out of scope
(D) School employees, by an overwhelming margin, said that the system performed well............employee satisfaction 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.........weakens the conclusion. Better than B.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 251
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2016, 22:18
chiragr wrote:
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.


(A) Actually strengthens the argument. OUT
(B) Passage does not discuss physical activity / playground issues. Irrelevant. OUT
(C) Passage has no connection with education of students' families.
(D) This actually supports the passage.
(E) The only option that weaken the passage. This is the answer
Choice E infact says that spending more money actually has a positive impact. This is counter to the argument. If this statement is true it certainly weakens the argument
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 02 May 2015
Posts: 193
Location: South Africa
Concentration: International Business, Organizational Behavior
GPA: 3.49
WE: Web Development (Insurance)
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2016, 22:27
chiragr wrote:
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.


This is a bottoms- up type question, can be solved only by going up from bottom :

Conclusion : Money won't lead to improvement in public school
Premise : Schools are organised to benefit employees rather than students.

There is not evidence or fact, just opinions, so we need to attack the conclusion directly. We need some proof that $ -> better schooling

Only E fits.

C is strengthening. It shows some factor other than money is involved. Leading to strengthening the author's argument.
_________________

Kudos if I helped ;)

Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 570
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jun 2016, 05:02
Although it takes the liberty of unwarranted assumption, the correct answer choice is E. Mostly by process of elimination

The conclusion of the argument is "The ONLY WAY TO FIX school system is to pour new idea and new approach."

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.
Wrong:- It actually kind of strengthen the argument

(B) Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do.
Wrong :- Irrelevant. We cannot simply assume that having a outside playground is some sort of new approach.

(C) Studies show that student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the students’ families.
Wrong:- Students and parents are not at trial here. The school system and ways to improve it are. So out of scope

(D) School employees, by an overwhelming margin, said that the system performed well.
Wrong:- For years there is debate about school reform (mentioned in passage) so there is a problem in the school system. It does not works well as school employees are claiming.

(E) Researchers in education have shown that students from school districts with high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests.
Right :- Just because this is the only viable option left
I am not entirely happy with this option but on test day I will still take it over other options.
This option makes a lot of assumptions. Higher score on test means better schools. Where are these better school located- In district with high income. What can be inferred assumed- more money is spend on schools in these districts. Hence it can be shown that spending more money on the school system can actually improve school standards and performance. And hence it is proved that injecting new ideas is NOT THE ONLY WAY TO IMPROVE

ALL SAID AND DONE, NOT A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 27 Feb 2015
Posts: 45
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 630 Q42 V34
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jun 2016, 08:31
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.
------------------------
Here's how I marked E.
Conclusion :the only way to fix our school systems( benefiting the students) is to inject new ideas and new approaches..
weaken Q, objective : any other way to fix the school ( note : fixing the school system means system where students are benefited)


(A) Schools that have instituted “new approaches” attract the best performing students.
--- if anything, it is strengthening. wrong
(B) Schools without outside playgrounds have lower levels of student performance than schools that do.
--- playgrounds??? irrelevant!
(C) Studies show that student performance corresponded most directly with the education of the students’ families.
--- so this is giving me other reason for students performance, but has it improved??? not meeting the objective . wrong
(D) School employees, by an overwhelming margin, said that the system performed well.
--- ofcourse employees will say that because it is benefiting them..wat about students?? has it improved? not meeting objective. wrong!
(E) Researchers in education have shown that students from school districts with high per-capita spending tend to receive higher scores on standardized tests.
--- ok! school districts with high per capita spending means they must receive high funding. and students from this highly financed school gets high scores ( so student is benefited)
author was saying the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches but actually financing school does fix the system ( benefiting student) . correct
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 637
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Apr 2017, 12:13
Re-structuring the argument first :-
today the schools are organized to benefit their adult employees rather than the students
THEREFORE the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches

Conclusion :- "the only way to fix our school systems is to inject new ideas and new approaches"
Weaken :- "the only way to fix our school systems is not to inject new ideas and new approaches".{ It means there is something else as well apart from new ideas and approaches}.

Choice D states that school employees are generally pleased with the school system. This does not address the core of the argument: that money does not improve student performance.

Choice E states that students from schools that spend more money tend to perform better on standardized tests. This suggests that the claim that money does not improve performance may be wrong. Correct
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3594
Premium Member
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Dec 2018, 07:23
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.
_________________

-
April 2018: New Forum dedicated to Verbal Strategies, Guides, and Resources

GMAT Club Bot
Re: For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin &nbs [#permalink] 17 Dec 2018, 07:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by

For years, the debate over public education reform has centered on fin

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.