It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 08:50

### 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: 494

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 66

Location: Kolkata
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% (01:27) correct 37% (01:36) wrong based on 532 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

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 66

Senior Manager
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 404

Kudos [?]: 249 [0], given: 50

Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB

### 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

Kudos [?]: 249 [0], given: 50

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 450

Kudos [?]: 110 [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...

Kudos [?]: 110 [0], given: 10

Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 171

Kudos [?]: 104 [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!!!

Kudos [?]: 104 [1], given: 25

Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 494

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 66

Location: Kolkata

### 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.

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 66

Senior Manager
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 404

Kudos [?]: 249 [0], given: 50

Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB

### 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

Kudos [?]: 249 [0], given: 50

Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 171

Kudos [?]: 104 [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!!!

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 25

Manager
Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 216

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 11

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2010, 02:41
A it is.

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 11

Senior Manager
Status: Upset about the verbal score - SC, CR and RC are going to be my friend
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 316

Kudos [?]: 23 [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

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 137

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....

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 416

Kudos [?]: 143 [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 !

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 112

Manager
Affiliations: NCC,SAE,YHIA
Joined: 04 May 2010
Posts: 51

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 2

Location: Mumbai , India
WE 1: 3 years international sales & mktg-projects

### 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.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 2

Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 41

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

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2010, 07:35
no doubt, it has to be "A"...

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

Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 181

Kudos [?]: 98 [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

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 11

Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 169

Kudos [?]: 267 [0], given: 31

Location: India
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
Many high schools send students to special courses to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2012, 06:12
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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 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 20%.

Kudos [?]: 267 [0], given: 31

Director
Status: Done with formalities.. and back..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 636

Kudos [?]: 653 [0], given: 23

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: Olin - Wash U - Class of 2015
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2012, 08:18
Vineetk 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 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 20%.

Basically we want an answer choice that weakens the argument. Only option A is the contender. If a school has better knowledge of exam or expertise in the particular area, it doesnt need to send its students to language school and also would be able to better provide the education. Thus the results. However, other schools still need to send students for such courses

Ans A it is.
_________________

Lets Kudos!!!
Black Friday Debrief

Kudos [?]: 653 [0], given: 23

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7676

Kudos [?]: 17378 [2], given: 232

Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2012, 19:54
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Vineetk 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 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 20%.

Conclusion: Language courses are a waste of time and money.

Weaken the conclusion.

A - Some schools do not send students to language courses. They have better knowledge of the exam since they have been participating for a long time. Some schools send students to language courses. They do not have as much knowledge since they have not been participating for long. Hence language courses for these schools may not be a waste of time and money.

The only confusion could be with E. Notice that E talks about the 'number of students' who passed. The total number of students appearing for the test could have increased which would have increased the number of students who passed even if the passing rates remained the same. Until and unless we have some more numbers, we cannot say that E weakens the conclusion.

For more, check out this strengthen/weaken video: an-architect-s-look-at-critical-reasoning-by-veritas-prep-142434.html#p1143539
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17378 [2], given: 232

Manager
Joined: 23 May 2013
Posts: 122

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 110

### Show Tags

06 Nov 2013, 06:37
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Vineetk 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 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 20%.

Conclusion: Language courses are a waste of time and money.

Weaken the conclusion.

A - Some schools do not send students to language courses. They have better knowledge of the exam since they have been participating for a long time. Some schools send students to language courses. They do not have as much knowledge since they have not been participating for long. Hence language courses for these schools may not be a waste of time and money.

The only confusion could be with E. Notice that E talks about the 'number of students' who passed. The total number of students appearing for the test could have increased which would have increased the number of students who passed even if the passing rates remained the same. Until and unless we have some more numbers, we cannot say that E weakens the conclusion.

For more, check out this strengthen/weaken video: an-architect-s-look-at-critical-reasoning-by-veritas-prep-142434.html#p1143539

Sorry i am still not clear as to why is E incorrect. Why do you say that it talks about number? It says that number of students increased by 20%. so if usually there were 100 students passing the exam after 1995 after attending the language course the pass % increased to 120. Its still % and not absolute numbers.
_________________

“Confidence comes not from always being right but from not fearing to be wrong.”

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 110

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7676

Kudos [?]: 17378 [1], given: 232

Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

06 Nov 2013, 07:10
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
ankur1901 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Vineetk 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 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 20%.

Conclusion: Language courses are a waste of time and money.

Weaken the conclusion.

A - Some schools do not send students to language courses. They have better knowledge of the exam since they have been participating for a long time. Some schools send students to language courses. They do not have as much knowledge since they have not been participating for long. Hence language courses for these schools may not be a waste of time and money.

The only confusion could be with E. Notice that E talks about the 'number of students' who passed. The total number of students appearing for the test could have increased which would have increased the number of students who passed even if the passing rates remained the same. Until and unless we have some more numbers, we cannot say that E weakens the conclusion.

For more, check out this strengthen/weaken video: an-architect-s-look-at-critical-reasoning-by-veritas-prep-142434.html#p1143539

Sorry i am still not clear as to why is E incorrect. Why do you say that it talks about number? It says that number of students increased by 20%. so if usually there were 100 students passing the exam after 1995 after attending the language course the pass % increased to 120. Its still % and not absolute numbers.

(E) says that "the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by 20%". The number of students who passed implies nothing about number of students who appeared since we don't know how the passing rates have changed.
Say prior to 1995, 200 students used to appear for the exam and 50% i.e. 100 used to pass. Now say 240 appear and still 50% i.e. 120 pass. The 'number of students who passed' has increased from 100 to 120 (i.e. by 20%) but that doesn't imply that students are performing better now. They are performing the same as before since the pass percentage is the same (in very restricted terms).
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17378 [1], given: 232

Manager
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
Posts: 88

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 30

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

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2013, 08:59
Hi Ankur1901

you right, Well the conclusion is whether the language course is waste of time and money or not.And option A only affects the premise" --that high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995--" without affecting the conclusion.

how people who support option B will prove that that the course is waste of time for another school ( in fact for all other schools as the tone of conclusion says). Moreover, the question is about language exam score ( which E clearly indicates) not overall score.Hence E suits better.

Even if , E says that the 20% rise is due to increase in number of students then in itself it infers that more people are joining this course.
thanks
Sid

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 30

Re: Many high schools send students to special courses to   [#permalink] 01 Dec 2013, 08:59

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 27 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by