In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession

Something that strengthens the argument should add useful additional knowledge other than what is common sense knowledge. In my opinion choice B offers no useful additional information because if there are private schools some parents would indeed send their children to the private schools and cost is indeed generally a factor. This is common sense knowledge just as the knowledge that public schools charge lower fees.

Anyway the fact that 25% of students in recent periods have always attended private schools during strong economic period may mean two things:

1) They never left the private school during recession
2) All who left during recession to the public schools returned to the private schools after recession.

In the second case, cost factor would have weighed in. In the first case, factors other than cost would have weighed in. How can you decide which one is stronger?
_________________

I think here we are moving in an area where a number of students have doubts. The area is "what is common sense knowledge". Well, I am not going into what is considered common sense in GMAT, generally; however, within the given context option B is certainly not a common sense knowledge.

Just because there are some private schools, would some parents always send their children to them, even if:
- the public education is completely free
-private schools charge substantial fees
-recession is going on

And again option B doesn't only say 'some' children go to private schools, it says "25%" of the children, which means 1 in every 4 children, which is substantial given that public education is free and private schools charge "substantial fees".

Can we consider above information as common sense? I think not.



I would say a case between these two extremes is more probable i.e. where some students move from private schools to govt. funded schools. You are right that it's hard to support one case over the other. The most probable case would be somewhere in between. This case would strengthen our conclusion - because for more students, more teachers would need to be hired.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

Dear Chiranjeev,

The reality is that parents do send their kids to private schools. We do know that private schools charge substantial fees. Also we are talking about a period when the economy is strong.

Regarding choice B, I mentioned the two scenarios because they fit the information given in that choice that each year about the same percentage of students go to the private schools during a strong economy. You cannot choose something in between because that would not be reflecting the truth given in choice B.

As a matter of fact the first case I mentioned in my previous post would actually weaken the argument.
_________________

In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

Conclusion- Any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools.

Premise- 1. Education in government-funded schools WILL be available free of charge, to all Vargonian children.

2. Current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

Assumption- [b] If students increase, automatically vacancies for teachers will also increase to SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION.....[/b]

Therefore, any statement supporting the increase of students, will support additional vacancies of teachers in government schools. And as more jobs for teachers are created, recession would have affected government teaching jobs less ......infact would have benefitted them more..... Now lets see the answers...

A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia's government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession. We are looking into what will happen in future.... will teaching jobs increase...which is only possible if students increase... HENCE IRRELEVANT.
B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees. During recession students will throng free education schools as fees higher in private funded schools... CORRECT...
C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia's government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession. Does'nt matter.... The ratio should not increase. How much is the ratio presently is IRRELEVANT...
D. Teachers in Vargonia's government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers. present pay package of teachers is not relevant......Increase in vacancies is..... and it can only increase if students increase... Hence IRRELEVANT..
E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded. What hapenned last time does'nt make a difference.... We are talking of the next recession... HENCE IRRELEVANT...


Kudos if you please.....

OA is debatable and vulnerable to many assumptions.

We are just assuming that in recession because of financial burden people will move their kids to govt schools... and if I add further one more assumption that most of the poor parents wont be able to afford to send their kids to even govt schools during recession then in that case this student-teacher ratio may come down... overall we are just trying to fit option B in the shoe of OA..

Not at all! OA is absolutely not debatable because it is an official question and the OA is official. This means it is useless to scorn at the OA. Instead, try to understand the logic they are giving since you will need to use it in GMAT questions.

We are not "assuming" that in recession people will move their kids to govt schools.

Legal requirement introduced just now: All kids have to receive free education in govt schools (irrespective of economy) and student teacher ratio has to be maintained.
It's a legal requirement brought in just now. Chances are that more students (who were not in school before) will enter govt schools since its required now. Even if all kids were already in school, the availability of teaching jobs will probably stay the same and not reduce.

Hence we conclude that: any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools.

Now how do we strengthen it further?

We are saying that currently economy is strong and 25% kids are in private schools which charge high fees. So it is highly unlikely that in recession, more people will shift their wards to private schools which charge high fees. It is far more likely that in recession, even some of these 25% kids might get shifted to free govt schools if parents feel that they are unable to afford the private school. Hence it is unlikely that many students from govt schools will shift to private schools (which are pricey) in time of recession and hence it is unlikely that teaching jobs will reduce.

This further strengthens our conclusion. Note that we don't have to "prove it beyond doubt". We just have to increase the probability.

Explanation for "B"
Conclusion: Jobs will not reduce for teachers in government schools during recession.
Reason: 1) Current student: teacher ratio is required to maintain.
2) Free Education
Assumption: Students will study at the time of recession. The number of students will definitely be equal or more than the current number. There assumptions are required to maintain the conclusion.
So, the above reason given in someone's post that students will not study during recession cannot be true, because it is hampering the conclusion. In both strength and weaken questions, we have to maintain the conclusion.

Now, our task is to strengthen the argument. We have to give a situation in which our conclusion is more believable.
If the number of student remains same, and the rich students will not shift from private school. In this condition also, job will not reduce. Please note, argument is saying that "JOBS WILL NOT REDUCE". It is not saying that it will increase.
Switch happened: Students will move from private to government during recession. Obviously, the number of jobs will increase and makes our argument more believable.

hello expert can you explain , how do we eliminate option D

Hey nks2611,

Notice that the conclusion says there won't be any recession in the number of teaching jobs. This conclusion is based on two facts:
1. Education in government-funded schools will be available, free of charge
2. current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

We need to strengthen this conclusion and state something that proves, there won't be any change/recession keeping our facts intact.

D is incorrect because it talks about the salary structure of Government Jobs and Private jobs for teachers. This statement no where tells us what would happen during the recession. Notice, we should not go with our own assumptions that teachers would be interested in joining government jobs. I would say salary structure makes this point OFS.

I hope that makes sense.
_________________

Nks2611, I agree wholeheartedly with abhimahna here.

If it helps, here's another way of saying the same thing: the conclusion is that "any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools." I'd argue that the higher salaries mentioned in (D) are completely irrelevant to the availability of government teaching jobs -- and as abhimahna mentioned, there's no connection whatsoever to future recessions in (D).

I hope this helps!
_________________

how did you get this info from the argument

children will switch from school privately fund to school fund by the government.(It is no where mentioned.)

We are told that when the economy is strong, almost 25% of children attend privately funded schools. Although not specifically stated, we can infer that when the economy is not strong, that percentage would decrease and more children would attend government-funded schools.
_________________

i marked option C as the answer and rejected option B on the basis that
here we are considering that private school wont reduce the fees in any case but how can we be so sure about that because a person will be ready to reduce the fees rather than having a school with no students
what if private school also reduces their fees in case of recession than kids of the people who are affected wont have to change their school.
kindly guide me where i am wrong, whether i have missed a critical part of the premise

True, (B) does not PROVE that children will move from privately-funded schools to government-funded (G-F) schools. It is certainly possible that the private schools will lower their fees to prevent students from leaving.

So what? Even if no students move from private to G-F, that won't change the number of students who are already in G-F schools. Since G-F schools are free and since the G-F schools are not going to exceed current student-teacher ratios, the availability of teaching jobs at G-F schools should not change.

Given (B), one extreme case is that the distribution of students does not change at all. As just described, that would have no impact on availability of teaching jobs at G-F schools. On the other hand, some students might move to G-F, and that would only increase the availability of teaching jobs at G-F schools. Either way, the job availability is not likely to decrease.

Does (B) prove that students will move from private to G-F? No, but that doesn't matter. Does (B) prove that the teaching job availability at G-F schools will not decrease? No -- we could certainly come up with scenarios in which the availability would decrease, even if (B) is true. But we are simply looking for the answer that MOST STRENGTHENS the argument. We don't have to prove anything

(B) is the best answer.
_________________

Hope your preparation is going well.
Let us try to understand the argument.
To attempt CR questions, one should follow the following steps.
1. Read the question stem- This is important as this gives clarity to understand what the question intends to ask. It is a strengthening question.
2. Work the argument, here the conclusion is any future recessions in Vargonia will not reduce the availability of the teaching jobs.
The premise of the argument is Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools is available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.
3. Predict the answer
The correct answer will try to justify the claim that the jobs are not going to reduce in Vargonia. Since the student-teacher ratio should remain intact, jobs can only reduce if the number of students in government schools decreases. Any answer choice which is able to establish that the number of students will not decrease will help to support the claim.
4. The last step is to eliminate the incorrect choices and reach to the right answer.
A. The discussion of previous recession is out of scope.
B. Is the correct answer as per our prediction of what the answer should do.
C. Choice C does not help us to establish the fact that teachers in government schools will not be affected by the recession.
D. This answer choice is out of scope.
E. Again what happened during the last economic recession has nothing to do with this one. This answer choice is also out of scope.
Hope it helps. Consistency is the key to crack the exam.
All the best!!
PythaGURUS Faculty Team
_________________

Guys thinking A vs B, Let me tell you Why B is superior.
The sentence "any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools" is the give away here.
Option A gives you past data and current data.. with which you cannot extrapolate the future data....
Option B opens all the gates to make a prediction...

A simple example for those still having some confusion -

Notice two important things :
- future recessions not reduce the availability of teaching jobs in GFS
- current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded

Now, assume that -
Currently Student : Teacher = 3 : 1
60 students and 20 teaching jobs are available.

What if in some case the number of students reduce?
Remember we need the ratio to be the same legally!
So imagine students reduced to 30 students and to maintain ratio the teaching jobs have to reduce to 10!

The above scenario completely destroys the argument! So basically we need to remove such a situation or something related to it.

Yes B is not going all out and saying that all those 25% students will come to the GFS, but atleast it gives some hope that some students might come to GFS or that the chance of the GFS students leaving to private schools is less!

How to eliminate other options-

A) The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia's government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession. This does not really say much about the jobs. Okay so the ratio is high, but will they be able to maintain the number of jobs?

C) Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia's government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession. Notice that we are clearly talking about what happens in case of future recession.

D) Teachers in Vargonia's government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers. Okay good for the teachers. But will they be able to hold their jobs?

E) During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded. Again, who cares about the old recessions?

why is 'A' incorrect? it is directly saying that student-teacher ratio is high means there is more student per children.

Let’s understand the details of the argument-
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations.

author’s opinion/conclusion-
However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools.

Reasons?

This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

We need an option that strengthens the conclusion.

(A) The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia's government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.
Irrelevant to the conclusion- “any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools”. Eliminate.

(B) During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.
When the economy was strong, 25 % of Vargonian children attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.
This figure is more likely to go down during a recession when the economy is down. With govt-funded schools available free of charge, parents will be more likely to send their children to govt. funded schools in Vargonia.
As the number of students goes up, the number of teachers would also go up as the new law requires that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.
Therefore any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. Option B strengthens the conclusion and is correct.


(C) Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia's government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.

How is it likely that any future recession in Vargonia will not negatively affect the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools? Doesn’t provide any support to the conclusion. Eliminate.


(D) Teachers in Vargonia's government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.

OK. So? Irrelevant. Eliminate.
(E) During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded

The conclusion talks about a legal retirement just introduced in Vargonia. Eliminate.

Vishnupriya
GMAT Verbal SME
_________________