While the total enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools

The SEC (the Sondland Education Commission, not the Securities Exchange Commission or college football's Southeastern Conference) has predicted that there will be a teacher shortage in Sondland's public elementary and secondary schools as early as the next academic year. The conclusion of this passage is that the prediction is unfounded (or, as defined by Google, "having no foundation or basis in fact").

Why does the author believe that the prediction is unfounded?

• The number of teachers has increased by three percent.
• The number of students has only increased by one percent.
• Given those percentages, the ratio of teachers to students must have increased.
• Since the ratio of teachers to student has increased, the author concludes that there should not be a shortage.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the author's conclusion?


This doesn't tell us anything about the number of teachers. If anything, choice (A) suggests that Sondland will be able to afford teachers in the future. Regardless, this does not weaken the author's conclusion and can be eliminated.


Information about the teachers' salaries doesn't tell us anything about the NUMBER of teachers or students at the schools. If the salaries did NOT increase with inflation, then that might be evidence that some teachers would consider quitting. However, the fact that the salaries kept pace with inflation does not weaken the conclusion, so (B) can be eliminated.


Uh oh, now Sondland's schools are in trouble.... the evidence in the passage suggests that the ratio of teachers to students will increase slightly, but what if that's not good enough? What if Sondland needs ten percent more teachers per pupil? In that case, the tiny increase in the ratio of teachers to students might not be enough. Choice (C) seriously weakens the conclusion, so hang on to this one.


This just tells us that the evidence in the passage is consistent with what's happened in the past. This statement might suggest that the trend will continue, but that would only strengthen the author's argument. We are looking for a weakener, so eliminate (D).


Choice (E) tells us that Sondland will be training fewer teachers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Sondland will hire fewer teachers (they might hire teachers who were trained elsewhere). Even if we do assume that the decline mentioned in choice (E) will lead to a decline in the number of teachers, it certainly wouldn't lead to a "teacher shortage as early as next academic year" (as stated in the conclusion). It would take at least another year to feel the effect of this decline. Choice (E) might be evidence that there will be a teacher shortage eventually, but choice (C) most seriously weakens the author's specific conclusion.

(C) is the best answer.