Official Explanation:
Colleges have higher graduation rates if students have more flexibility as to their choice of courses. From 2013 to 2018, the graduation rate at Balrose College steadily increased by 17%. It is therefore apparent that Balrose College offered greater flexibility in course choices in 2018 than in 2013.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It assumes that a condition that is sufficient for a particular outcome is necessary for that outcome.
(B) It makes an assumption that is directly contradicted by the stated evidence.
(C) It blurs the distinction between the cause of an outcome and the effect produced by that outcome.
(D) It presents, without warrant, a particular case as if it were a general principle.
(E) It uses imprecise terms in order to draw a conclusion that is unsupported by the given statistical information.
Question Type: Logical Flaw
Boil It Down: Higher graduation rates have been correlated to flexible course choices. Balrose College’s graduation rates increased from 2013 to 2018. Therefore, the reason must be that they offered flexible course choices.
Goal: Find the option that would best criticize this frame of logic.
Analysis:
This question asks us to find a flaw in the argument as presented:
Conclusion: Balrose College offered greater flexibility in course choices in 2018 than in 2013.
Premise 1: Colleges will have higher grad rates if there is more flexibility.
Premise 2: The graduation rate at Balrose increased between 2013 and 2018.
The problem is that we are told that IF a college offers more flexibility THEN the grad rate increases, but that does not mean that IF the grad rate increases THEN the college offers more flexibility. In other words, as choice A states, offering more flexibility is SUFFICIENT for an outcome (higher grad rates) but we are not told that offering more flexibility is NECESSARY for that outcome. There may be other causes. This difference, between sufficiency and necessity, is an important one. Here’s another example: If a person is in business school, then he or she took the GMAT. This is (largely) a true statement. This means that being in business school is enough to say (is sufficient for) one having taken the GMAT. However, this If/Then statement cannot be reversed. One cannot conclude that if one takes the GMAT, then one is in business school. (You have to score well, decide to go to business school, etc.) Taking the GMAT is necessary but not sufficient.
(A) It assumes that a condition that is sufficient for a particular outcome is necessary for that outcome.
This is the correct choice. As explained in the analysis above, a condition that is sufficient for a particular outcome (offering more flexibility) does not have to be necessary. Balrose could have increased their graduation rate through some other means than offering more flexibility.
(B) It makes an assumption that is directly contradicted by the stated evidence.
There is no contradiction implied in the passage.
(C) It blurs the distinction between the cause of an outcome and the effect produced by that outcome.
There is no blurring of cause and effect. The cause is clearly given as more flexibility, and the effect is given as higher grad rates. This is not concludable, but there is no blurring of the two.
(D) It presents, without warrant, a particular case as if it were a general principle.
The case of Balrose is not used to support a general principle regarding grad rates. There is no generalizing to other schools, for example.
(E) It uses imprecise terms in order to draw a conclusion that is unsupported by the given statistical information.
None of the terms are imprecise. They all mean exactly what they appear to mean.
Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.