priyanshim
Can someone please explain why A is wrong here?
Happy to help here:
Argument Analysis: Ten years ago in Maricopa county, fewer than 50 percent of seniors graduated from the high schools.
To counter this situation the county introduced a solution in form of the virtual tutor in the schools with poorest graduation rates.
Current Situation: Graduation rates have now improved to over 60 percent.
Conclusion: Personalised learning technology has contributed towards boosting graduation rates in Maricopa County.
What does the author takes for granted? Author certainly takes for granted that there isn't any other reason for the increase in the graduation rates other than the personalised learning technology.
Quote:
A. The number of students graduating from schools where personalised technology was deployed has increased over the past decade.
One this certainly doesn't seem logical for an assumption for this particular question. When the argument states that what does the author takes for granted, it basically wants to know the assumption that the author makes for the argument.
Assumption is something without which the argument can't stand, and needs to strengthen the conclusion. Here the answer option doesn't talk anything about the reason of the increase of the graduation rates.
Secondly, it isn't necessary for the percentage to correspond with the number. It is possible that number of students may decrease but the percentage may increase.
Hence this option goes out.
Quote:
B. Most students in schools with poorest graduation rates preferred learning using personalised learning technology over learning from a live instructor.
Well, it would be too extreme to say that MOST students proffered technology over live instructor. We have not been provided with any such information. Graduation rates have improved after the technology was implemented, but may be no one used the technology and the reason for the improved rates is something else.
Quote:
C. The criterion for the graduation in Maricopa county has not been significantly stringent ten years back than it is now.
This seems feasible as it talks about the reason of increase/decrease of graduation rates. Let's negate this "
The criterion for the graduation in Maricopa county HAS been significantly stringent ten years back than it is now" If that's the case, that the criteria of graduation has been relaxed, then it significantly weakens the conclusion.
It shows that the cause of the situation isn't the one that conclusion supports, but is something else.
Hence the actual statement strengthens the conclusion, by eliminating the alternate cause of the result.
Let's keep C
Quote:
D. Most schools that employed personalised learning technology have demonstrated a significant improvement in graduation rates.
We don't know this. Whether most schools have shown the improvement. All we know is the cumulative rates of the county has increased to more than 60 percent. May be the schools which were already performing well have been even better over time. Goes Out.
Quote:
E. Every school that initially had lower than average rate and then used personalised learning technology demonstrated a significant improvement in graduation rates.
Similar reasoning as in D to eliminate E.
C is the best option.