Among the teachers at Ashcroft High School, English and History teache

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Choice (A) is irrelevant. The focus of the question is about time spent grading, so time spent meeting with students is outside of the focus of the question.

Choice (B) is irrelevant. We have absolutely no indication that teaching different grade levels would involve more or less time spend grading papers, so there is no clear connection between this statement and the thrust of the argument.

Choice (C) is vague, making an appeal to what most schools do. If most of the other schools have equal pay for teachers of all subjects, then maybe those schools are doing things the fair way, and this argument is wrong; or maybe the argument about Ashcroft recognizes a fundamental inequity that is not recognized at most other school, and Ashcroft will, by its shining example, usher in a new era of workplace equality. Just because one place is considering doing things differently from the way everyone else does them does not necessarily indicate who is right.

Choice (D) points out a flaw. If Science teachers spent a great deal of time grading lab reports, then it definitely wouldn’t be fair for English and History teachers to get more pay for grading, but not the Science teachers. This is a weakener.

Choice (E) is irrelevant. If one pay system or another is the fair and right thing to do, it doesn’t matter who makes the decision to implement it. Furthermore, it sounds as if the union is interesting in basing pay on “merit”, which is a different criterion than the one supported in the argument.

Choice (F) is a strengthener. If this is true, then indeed, pay reflects hours of work, and so if the English and History teachers do work many more hours because of all the grading they have, then they would get paid accordingly. This is a strengthener.

strengthener = (F)

weakener = (D)