PerptualKnite56
Many courses in the high school syllabus are the result of outdated pedagogical prescriptions. Subjects such as geography and advanced mathematics are a mandatory part of the curriculum, whereas courses with pragmatic value, such as home science, are classified under electives and thus rarely chosen by students.
Which of the following conclusions can be derived from this information?
A. Students take courses such as geography and advanced mathematics only because they are required courses.
B. Home science is the most useful course that high school students can take.
C. Home science should be considered more important than it currently is.
D. Courses that do not have practical value should not be a part of the high school curriculum.
E. High schools must give more importance to subjects that are not academic in nature.
A- Not mentioned
B - Home science is mentioned as an example of a pragmatic course.
C- Same as B
D - Too strong statement and out of scope
E - Correct.
E seems to be correct option. Is anyone thinking differently?
Dear PerptualKnite56,
I'm happy to respond.

What is the source of this question? It doesn't have the feel of a GMAT CR question. Was the a question from some other test? Among other things, the perspective in the prompt is antiquated, at least in the USA. I don't think Geography has been part of the curriculum for half a century!
Let's look at the answers:
(A) Students take courses such as geography and advanced mathematics only because they are required courses.We don't know. We know students must take these, but if they weren't required, would students elect to take them? We don't know.
(B) Home science is the most useful course that high school students can take.Far too extreme. The author things that home science is somewhat important, but not necessarily the "most useful." Extremely language is never correct.
(C) Home science should be considered more important than it currently is.Right now, it appears that home science is not considered important at all, and the author cites it as something that has value. Therefore, it should be more important then it currently is. This is a quite reasonable inference.
(D) Courses that do not have practical value should not be a part of the high school curriculum.This contradicts the authors argument.
(E) High schools must give more importance to subjects that are not academic in nature.Hmmm. Is home science not an academic subject? This is not clear from the prompt. It's a little unclear what is meant by that course title, and it's hard to generalize, because that's the only example that the author gives of a course that should be given more prominence.
I don't think this is a particularly GMAT-like question, but I do agree with their OA.
Does all this make sense?
Mike