Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 22 May 2017, 21:06

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Many high schools send students to special courses to

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 498
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 66

Many high schools send students to special courses to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2010, 11:17
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

63% (02:34) correct 37% (01:43) wrong based on 121 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Many high schools send students to special courses to prepare them for language exams. Some language teachers criticize these courses and point out that high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995. The language teachers say that the courses are a waste of time and money.

Which of the following, if true, is the MOST effective challenge to this argument.

A ) Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
b) Schools that have sent students to the courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
c) The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
d) The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 408
Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 50

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2010, 19:43
suyashjhawar wrote:
Many high schools send students to special courses to prepare them for language exams. Some language teachers criticize these courses and point out that high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995. The language teachers say that the courses are a waste of time and money.

Which of the following, if true, is the MOST effective challenge to this argument.

A ) Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
b) Schools that have sent students to the courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
c) The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
d) The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.

I am confused with the OA given here.

Option A - Seems to corroborate with the argument.
Option B - Corroborates with the argument.
Option C - Irrelevant.
Option D - Irrelevant.

Option E - Although it is not very convincing, it is the best bet of all the options.

Any other thoughts???
_________________

Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 461
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2010, 20:08
Can some one please shed more light on this
_________________

GGG (Gym / GMAT / Girl) -- Be Serious

Its your duty to post OA afterwards; some one must be waiting for that...

Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 173
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 90 [1] , given: 25

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2010, 20:17
1
KUDOS
We need to find a fact which would weaken the language teachers argument that the courses are a waste of time and money.

b) Schools that have sent students to the courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
c) The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
d) The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
These do not weaken the argument.

e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.
This does not explicitly mention that the increase in passing was due to the special courses.

A ) Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
Since the schools which do not send students to special courses were the only ones who participated in the exams prior to 1995 they had better knowledge of the exams and hence had a higher average score. This weakens the argument. So A is the correct answer.
_________________

Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.

Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!

Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 498
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 66

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2010, 20:31
siyer wrote:
We need to find a fact which would weaken the language teachers argument that the courses are a waste of time and money.

b) Schools that have sent students to the courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
c) The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
d) The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
These do not weaken the argument.

e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.
This does not explicitly mention that the increase in passing was due to the special courses.

A ) Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
Since the schools which do not send students to special courses were the only ones who participated in the exams prior to 1995 they had better knowledge of the exams and hence had a higher average score. This weakens the argument. So A is the correct answer.

Good explanation.Kudos.
Senior Manager
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 408
Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 50

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2010, 20:49
siyer wrote:
We need to find a fact which would weaken the language teachers argument that the courses are a waste of time and money.

b) Schools that have sent students to the courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
c) The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
d) The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
These do not weaken the argument.

e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.
This does not explicitly mention that the increase in passing was due to the special courses.

A ) Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
Since the schools which do not send students to special courses were the only ones who participated in the exams prior to 1995 they had better knowledge of the exams and hence had a higher average score. This weakens the argument. So A is the correct answer.

I am still confused. Help me understand this clearly.

The argument notes that a) language courses are a waste of time. b) high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do [highlight]since 1995[/highlight]. The highlighted text - [highlight]since 1995[/highlight] means on or after 1995.

Now option A talks of prior to 1995 and also talks of students not attending the courses but still having better knowledge of the exams thus supporting the argument that the courses are a waste of time. Isn't option A just supporting whatever is presented in the stimulus???
_________________

Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog

Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 173
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 25

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2010, 23:58
Quote:
The argument notes that a) language courses are a waste of time. b) high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995. The highlighted text - since 1995 means on or after 1995.

Now option A talks of prior to 1995 and also talks of students not attending the courses but still having better knowledge of the exams thus supporting the argument that the courses are a waste of time. Isn't option A just supporting whatever is presented in the stimulus???

The students who do not attend the special courses are in the schools who have prior knowledge of the exams. So the schools help them with their exams whereas students from the other schools do not have that advantage and hence attend special courses.

So the special courses would be a waste of time only for the students of those schools who had participated in the exams prior to 1995. For the students of other schools, it would not be a waste of time.
_________________

Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.

Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!

Manager
Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 218
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 11

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2010, 02:41
A it is.
Senior Manager
Status: Upset about the verbal score - SC, CR and RC are going to be my friend
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 317
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2010, 06:55
ezhilkumarank wrote:
siyer wrote:
We need to find a fact which would weaken the language teachers argument that the courses are a waste of time and money.

b) Schools that have sent students to the courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
c) The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
d) The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
These do not weaken the argument.

e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.
This does not explicitly mention that the increase in passing was due to the special courses.

A ) Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
Since the schools which do not send students to special courses were the only ones who participated in the exams prior to 1995 they had better knowledge of the exams and hence had a higher average score. This weakens the argument. So A is the correct answer.

I am still confused. Help me understand this clearly.

The argument notes that a) language courses are a waste of time. b) high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do [highlight]since 1995[/highlight]. The highlighted text - [highlight]since 1995[/highlight] means on or after 1995.

Now option A talks of prior to 1995 and also talks of students not attending the courses but still having better knowledge of the exams thus supporting the argument that the courses are a waste of time. Isn't option A just supporting whatever is presented in the stimulus???

A for me too.

This answer weakens by saying the schools, which did not send students for special courses already has knowledge on the exam to prepare the students well.
_________________

My gmat story
MGMAT1 - 630 Q44V32
MGMAT2 - 650 Q41V38
MGMAT3 - 680 Q44V37
GMATPrep1 - 660 Q49V31
Knewton1 - 550 Q40V27

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 138
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2010, 07:53
A for me although m confused between the two options A and E

2.20 min...........
_________________

Whatever you do, Do it SINCERELY!!!

GOD help those who help themselves....

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 430
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 112

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2010, 03:19
I pick A ...though I marked this by POE !! did somehow did not understand how other choices are related to the argument !
Manager
Affiliations: NCC,SAE,YHIA
Joined: 04 May 2010
Posts: 52
Location: Mumbai , India
WE 1: 3 years international sales & mktg-projects
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

19 Sep 2010, 00:55
In this weaken question we have to contest the conclusion that special courses are waste of time and money.

Option that provides information about the benefits of the course is winner.

A ) Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.

Hence the schools who report better scores without sending the students to special courses had benefited from the courses earlier, therefore other schools that are sending the students to the special courses now will benefit from the courses.
_________________

Sun Tzu-Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 42
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2010, 07:35
no doubt, it has to be "A"...
Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 181
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 11

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2010, 03:13
had to go with A as other options do not weaken the argument at all.
A talks about before 1995 when the schools which do not send the students to the courses are the only one which participated in the exams, but it does not have any reference to post 1995

But the other options are irrelevant. So picked A
SVP
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2498
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '19 (D)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Followers: 26

Kudos [?]: 339 [0], given: 166

Re: Many high schools send students to special courses to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jan 2016, 19:58
picked E, because the argument says MANY. nevertheless, many might be a small portion overall. Thus, the only one that actually works is A. if schools who do not send, know better the exam, the teachers of these school know better how to prepare the students.
Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2015
Posts: 82
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 28

Re: Many high schools send students to special courses to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2016, 07:17
I originally thought E, read A again, got lazy and picked E.

Don't get lazy! When you've narrowed it down take the 30 more seconds to really refine your answer!
Re: Many high schools send students to special courses to   [#permalink] 09 Jan 2016, 07:17
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Many courses in the high school syllabus are the result of outdated 3 13 Apr 2016, 23:46
3 A survey was recently given to all high school students 4 23 Mar 2016, 19:55
6 Many high schools send students to special courses to 7 29 Mar 2017, 12:36
1 The local high school students have been clamoring for the 6 19 Aug 2013, 03:24
1 Dr. Godfrey: Now that high school students are allowed to 6 11 Dec 2015, 11:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by