In defending the Hyperion School of Journalism from charges that its

Hello, aarushisingla. I would be happy to offer my thoughts to assist you and the community at large. As you have already touched on, the question asks us to undermine or weaken something, but that something is specifically the defense offered by the dean. Thus, we must first figure out exactly what the grounds may be for this defense. Only then can we dismantle it. Let us jump into the passage.


Okay, so the defense is against charges that [the Hyperion School of Journalism] program is of little or no value to its students. I emphasize the last part because the charges address benefits to students, and the dean speaks to this point exactly: the recent success in placing students. The number he cites indicates that that percent of graduates went on to internships or jobs in print or broadcast journalism. Again, I emphasize the evidence cited because in CR, to put a dent in an argument, it is crucial to stick to the exact phrasing of the premise(s) or conclusion from the passage. Otherwise, you risk getting ensnared in the not-so-linear logic of a tricky answer choice or two, and you will likely resort to guessing. What do the answer choices have in store for us?

Analysis: If the majority of students have come from jobs in journalism already, then the dean, by dredging up job placement statistics in journalism in particular seems, well, like a sleight-of-hand. It would be akin to starting a school for the gifted and then citing statistics on the number of graduates who became members of MENSA. No duh, right? Getting back to the question at hand, the force of the evidence cited by the dean is certainly undermined when this new information comes to light. This is what we are looking for. Green light.

Analysis: Ah, the some trap. What does that mean? Two newspaper editors? Five hundred? Would it even matter? The dean does not appeal to evidence on the esteem in which newspaper editors hold the program, so this answer choice does not undermine anything in the passage. Red light.

Analysis: We are not interested in these cities, nor do we care whether they publish one, two, or twenty-five major newspapers. The dean did NOT mention where the graduates were being placed within the blanket term print or broadcast journalism, a fact that might make this new information pertinent. Red light.

Analysis: The dean does not invoke a comparison to peer institutions; such a consideration is irrelevant to the passage. And if Hyperion School of Journalism were equal to other journalism schools, but none of them offered much value to their students, then what then? The criticism would be perfectly intact. Red light.

Analysis: Admissions statistics are another outside-of-scope consideration. If you find yourself wanting to justify the reasoning that this answer choice indicates that the applicants are of a higher quality now than they were years ago, then so what? What does this say about their education at Hyperion being of value? Nothing, nothing at all. Red light.

In short, read the question and passage carefully and keep your reasoning as close as possible to the logic presented in the passage. Like produces like, and the clear winner among the answer choices here is (A). If anyone has further questions, I would be happy to help out.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Yes, I got it. Thank you so much

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.