High Academic Achievers rarely do well professionally. The most common

Can you please help me understand why A is the correct choice?

KarishmaB, can you help with both option A & B pls­

 



High Academic Achievers rarely do well professionally.
The most common cause  is their risk-averse nature.
KPM that is embraced by students by choice, rewards minimizing risk.
RSM curriculum rewards embracing uncertainties.

Conclusion: the introduction of RSM will increase the chances of professional success of high academic achievers.

We know that students embrace KPM by choice. Will the introduction of RSM increase the chances of professional success? Well the chances could be increased in case students embrace RSM. Just introducing it will not be sufficient. So we need to evaluate whether students are likely to embrace RSM or not upon its introduction. 

A. Whether high academic achievers have many curriculum choices today that reward embracing uncertainty.

We know that they choose KPM. If they already have the choice of other curricula that reward embracing uncertainty but they still choose KPM only, it is unlikely that introducing RSM will increase the chances of professional success because students may not embrace RSM. They havent embraced such current curricula. 

B. Whether the inherent risk-averse nature of some high academic achievers will prevent them from embracing the RSM curriculum.

The big problem here is the use of 'some.' Even if some students do not embrace RSM, it doesn't mean anything about the general acceptance of RSM. RSM could still be embraced by many others and hence it may increase the chances of professional success.

Answer (A)
­

KarishmaB why not Cor E?

Posted from my mobile device

 

(C) is too restrictive in its use of the word "identical." Even if the traits are not identical but similar, it could still be useful. Hence a yes or a no answer doesn't make a big difference here.
(E) - the 'before' story is irrelevant. How many people are before embracing some curriculum doesn't matter. They get affected by what the curriculum teaches them. We need to know how suitable they are for success post going through the curriculum. 

­­

­High Academic Achievers rarely do well professionally. The most common cause attributed to the lack of professional success of these high achievers is their risk-averse nature. KPM curriculum, the most popular high school curriculum embraced by students by choice, rewards choosing outcomes in which risk can be minimized. On the other hand, a newly proposed RSM curriculum rewards embracing uncertainties. The proponents of this conclusion are claiming that the introduction of this curriculum will increase the chances of professional success of high academic achievers.

Which of the following is most relevant in evaluating the proponents of RSM?

A. Whether high academic achievers have many curriculum choices today that reward embracing uncertainty. - If, say, there are many other such curricula offered today, but the high academic achievers still choose by choice the KPM, then just by virtue of introducing the new curriculum will not ensure acceptance by students. ok

B. Whether the inherent risk-averse nature of some high academic achievers will prevent them from embracing the RSM curriculum. - "Some," meaning at least 1, is an issue. Even if 1 student doesn't join, RSM can still be a success. 

C. Whether the traits required to be professionally successful are identical to those taught in RSM curriculum. - We already know the answer to this question from the passage. The key trait is to embrace uncertainties, and RSM provides that. Any other traits are not within the scope of the argument and are not important.  

D. Whether other students who are not academic achievers and are students of KPM do well professionally - "students who are not academic achievers" are out of scope. 

E. Whether many high academic achievers, prior to embracing the KPM curriculum have risk taking traits that are in line with those imparted in the RSM curriculum. Say they have. So what? Out of scope. ­