School superintendent: It is a sad fact that, until now, entry into th

Question

School superintendent: It is a sad fact that, until now, entry into the academically best high school in our district has been restricted to the children of people who were wealthy enough to pay the high tuition. Parents who were previously denied the option of sending their children to this school now have this option, since I am replacing the tuition requirement with a requirement that allows only those who live in the neighborhood of the school to attend.

The superintendent's claim about the effect of replacing the tuition requirement relies on the assumption that

(A) the residents of the school's neighborhood tend to be wealthy
(B) people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are able to live in the neighborhood of the school
(C) people less wealthy than those who were able to pay the old tuition are in the majority in the district
(D) there are no high schools in the district other than the one referred to by the superintendent
(E) there are many people not wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition who wish to have their children attend the school

MA · Answer

(B) people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are able to live in the neighborhood of the school

sastal · Answer

For the  sake of argument , I choose E:

there are many people not wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition who wish to have their children attend the school

It would not really matter whether the intendent opened the school to the neighborhood, if no one wanted to go there in the first place.

No question, the answer is either E or B.

ed091maf · Answer

I'll go with C, because if just a few not wealthy families lived in the neighbourhood then the new tutition requirenment will not have the desired effect - to allow poor families let their children attend high school.

meenu · Answer

B is my answer. 

C not sure as neighborhood may not necessarily mean district.

E the people who are not wealthy enough but wish to send their school. what about are they in the neighborhood??

GMATT73 · Answer

I`m going with B. Otherwise the superintendent would`t have changed the tuition requirements

do118 · Answer

I go with C.
I think C clearly states the assumption thus strengthens the argument. The argument is the majority of district's people cannot afford sending their children because it is expensive. C states that the majority of people who were not able to send their children lives within the district. 
sorry for rambling

doloris · Answer

was stuck between b and e. :roll:

will go with e for the same reason that sastal gave. whats the OA? Best.

VeritasPrepRon · Answer

If you negate the five answer choices, B is the only one that makes everything fall apart:

(A) the residents of the schools neighborhood tend to  NOT  be wealthy  Thus we'd get new students 
(B) people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are  NOT  able to live in the neighborhood of the school   The students who live in the neighborhood could have paid the old tuition, so you won't get any new students via this plan 
(C) people less wealthy than those who were able to pay the old tuition are  NOT  in the majority in the district  Doesn't matter if it's the majority, all you need is one student to make this true, not 50%+1 
(D) there  IS AT LEAST ONE   are no  high schools in the district other than the one referred to by the superintendent  Off topic, we're discussing who's attending this particular school. If there were no alternatives before, then people who couldn't afford the high tuition went out of district 
(E) there are  NOT  many people not wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition who wish to have their children attend the school  Wishing to attend the school isn't enough, we need some indication that they also live in the district.

eddy8700 · Answer

School superintendent: It is a sad fact that, until now, entry into the academically best high school in our district has been restricted to the children of people who were wealthy enough to pay the high tuition. Parents who were previously denied the option of sending their children to this school now have this option since I am replacing the tuition requirement with a requirement that allows only those who live in the neighborhood of the school to attend.

The superintendent's claim about the effect of replacing the tuition requirement relies on the assumption that

(A) the residents of the school's neighborhood tend to be wealthy

(B) people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are able to live in the neighborhood of the school.

(C) people less wealthy than those who were able to pay the old tuition are in the majority in the district.

(D) there are no high schools in the district other than the one referred to by the superintendent.

(E) there are many people not wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition who wish to have their children attend the school.

Answer is B 
since tuition requirements now have been replaced by who live in neighborhood

Skywalker18 · Answer

School superintendent: It is a sad fact that, until now, entry into the academically best high school in our district has been restricted to the children of people who were wealthy enough to pay the high tuition. Parents who were previously denied the option of sending their children to this school now have this option, since I am replacing the tuition requirement with a requirement that allows only those who live in the neighborhood of the school to attend.

Boil it down - replacing the tuition requirement with a requirement that allows only those who live in the neighborhood of the school to attend will give parents other than those wealthy enough to send their children to this school

The superintendent's claim about the effect of replacing the tuition requirement relies on the assumption that

(A) the residents of the school's neighborhood tend to be wealthy -- Incorrect -- this is a weakener
(B) people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are able to live in the neighborhood of the school - Correct -- Negate this and the argument falls apart
(C) people less wealthy than those who were able to pay the old tuition are in the majority in the district -- Incorrect -- there might variation among the areas within a district and these people need not be in majority
(D) there are no high schools in the district other than the one referred to by the superintendent -- Irrelevant
(E) there are many people not wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition who wish to have their children attend the school -- Incorrect -- we don't know where these people reside

Answer B

sony1000 · Answer

B answer allows anyone that is able to live in the neighborhood to have their children go to the best high school. So anyone outside the neighborhood has an option to move in there and make it happen. Out of the 5 answers B is the one that better allows parents that can't afford tuition to send their kids there.

David nguyen · Answer

School superintendent: It is a sad fact that, until now, entry into the academically best high school in our district has been restricted to the children of people who were wealthy enough to pay the high tuition. Parents who were previously denied the option of sending their children to this school now have this option, since I am replacing the tuition requirement with a requirement that allows only those who live in the neighborhood of the school to attend.

Situation: only wealthy enough to pay the high tuition -> accept to best high school
Plan: Replacing tuition requirement that allows only those who live in the neighborhood -> those who were denied now can attend.

There is no GAP that needs to be filled, so we should look for defender assumption, the alternate possibility that the plan might go off the rail.

The superintendent's claim about the effect of replacing the tuition requirement relies on the assumption that

This has nothing to do with those who were denied. (A) is out.
 
Sounds promising. Hang on to this.
 
Sounds promising as well. Hang on to this.
 
We are only care about 1 school. Other schools are irrelevant. (D) is out.
 
But do they meet the requirement? Yes and No? Then this assumption is not required. (E) is out.

Down to (B) and (C). What is the difference between the two answer choices?
(B) is saying that those who are not wealthy enough to pay for tuition are ABLE to live in the neighborhood of the school. This means that if you are not able to live there, you won't be able to attend the school. So this must be true, otherwise the change of the tuition does not change the situation at all.
(C) is saying that those who are not wealthy enough to pay for tuition are in the MAJORITY in the district. This leaves the possibility that even if those people are in the minority, 50%, or majority, they will still be able to attend now because of the change. Hence, (C) does not necessarily have to be true.

(B) is our answer.

devil.rocx · Answer

The argument talks that "the people who previously applied but couldn't get admission because they were not wealthy enough might have a chance now because the criteria changed from wealthy enough to people who live in the neighbhourhood.

Between B and E. 
E talks about people who wish to apply ( we don't know did they apply before or not. Secondly, we don't know where they live. Because what matters is people who applied and also live near the neighborhood. Hence B.

bajpaispandy · Answer

Can someone please explain why the answer is B not C?

unraveled · Answer

School superintendent: It is a sad fact that, until now, entry into the academically best high school in our district has been restricted to the children of people who were wealthy enough to pay the high tuition.  Parents who were previously denied  the option of sending their children to this school  now have this option , since I am replacing the tuition requirement with a requirement that allows  only those who live in the neighborhood of the school to attend .

The superintendent's claim about the effect of replacing the tuition requirement relies on the assumption that

(A) the residents of the school's neighborhood  tend to be wealthy  - WRONG. Goes against the argument of those who were not able to afford the tuition.
(B) people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition  are able to live in the neighborhood of the school  - CORRECT. Best among the lot. POE helps. Those who could not afford the tuition would be able to send their children.
(C) people less wealthy than those who were able to pay the old tuition are in the  majority  in the district - WRONG. Not about the majority or minority.
(D) there are  no high schools in the district  other than the one referred to by the superintendent - WRONG. Scope shift.
(E) there are many people not wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition  who wish  to have their children attend the school - WRONG. Wish is irrelevant. Additionally, the set this choice discusses includes parents who might be living in the neighbourhood or beyond it.

Answer B.

School superintendent: It is a sad fact that, until now, entry into th

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

School superintendent: It is a sad fact that, until now, entry into th

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards