It is currently 22 Nov 2017, 04:28

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 131

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 368

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2015, 14:39
How to find conclusion in these kind of arguments. Please help
As per MGMAT, this is the conclusion : The conclusion is that the government has “practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget."
_________________

Feel Free to Press Kudos if you like the way I think :).

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 368

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Mar 2015
Posts: 50

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 6

Re: The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2015, 05:30
The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year’s budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?

A) Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget. correct, as if the total spending are increasing, the premise of the argument is contradicted and thus weakening the conclusion
B) The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants. wrong, here we are talking about only a fraction of total beneficiaries.
C) Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities. wrong, here too only a fraction
D) On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university. wrong again, as how much the grant is, it will help
E) Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget. wrong, talking about education and not particularly about higher education as discussed in the argument

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 6

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 36

Kudos [?]: 25 [1], given: 39

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jun 2016, 23:25
1
This post received
KUDOS
- they did not increase pell grants, more over limiting it next year.
- PG improve access to higher education for needy
- if not this then gap between poor and rich will widen. - conclusion

Flaw with these arguments is - anything that contradict this conclusion, ofcource if they get more PG next year.


A) Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget. - well a poor will get more benefit by this.
B) The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants. - means poor will not get PG due to lack of info
C) Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities. - increasing after school program is not going to help. better give one program but give PG with it.
D) On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university. - by this they are trying to say that help coming from PG is not significant. poors still need to pay a hefty price.
E) Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget. - if federal spending will increase then PG should also increase, but i can't say that with certainty, if yes then this will also weaken.

close call between A and E but i will go with A
_________________

Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Kudos [?]: 25 [1], given: 39

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2016
Posts: 50

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 129

Location: China
Concentration: Finance, Nonprofit
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q51 V31
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.4
Re: The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2016, 04:26
A directly attacks the premise. Is it common in weaken Q? I mean, it's extraneous to the conclusion..
_________________

It's better to burn out than to fade away.

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 129

Top Contributor
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1271

Kudos [?]: 2386 [0], given: 178

Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2016, 08:11
Top Contributor
zw504 wrote:
A directly attacks the premise. Is it common in weaken Q? I mean, it's extraneous to the conclusion..


Hello zw504

The argument says about "Perl grant" program and the answer A says about "programs targeted at improving access...". So these facts do not contradict each other.
"Perl grant" can be reduced but other similar programs can be increased and in total, disadvantaged students will receive more money from the budget
_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

Kudos [?]: 2386 [0], given: 178

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2016
Posts: 50

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 129

Location: China
Concentration: Finance, Nonprofit
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q51 V31
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.4
Re: The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2016, 08:27
Harley1980 wrote:
zw504 wrote:
A directly attacks the premise. Is it common in weaken Q? I mean, it's extraneous to the conclusion..


Hello zw504

The argument says about "Perl grant" program and the answer A says about "programs targeted at improving access...". So these facts do not contradict each other.
"Perl grant" can be reduced but other similar programs can be increased and in total, disadvantaged students will receive more money from the budget



Thank you Harley1980.

I found the point to weaken the reasoning. Should be more careful when analyzing the options and figure out the subtle words indicating the point (programs--programs).

I still haven't recognize the structure of this Q. Is it a premise-conclusion one or a conclusion-premise one?

thanks,
_________________

It's better to burn out than to fade away.

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 129

Top Contributor
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1271

Kudos [?]: 2386 [0], given: 178

Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2016, 08:38
Top Contributor
zw504 wrote:
Harley1980 wrote:
zw504 wrote:
A directly attacks the premise. Is it common in weaken Q? I mean, it's extraneous to the conclusion..


Hello zw504

The argument says about "Perl grant" program and the answer A says about "programs targeted at improving access...". So these facts do not contradict each other.
"Perl grant" can be reduced but other similar programs can be increased and in total, disadvantaged students will receive more money from the budget



Thank you Harley1980.

I found the point to weaken the reasoning. Should be more careful when analyzing the options and figure out the subtle words indicating the point (programs--programs).

I still haven't recognize the structure of this Q. Is it a premise-conclusion one or a conclusion-premise one?

thanks,


Do you ask there is the conclusion in this argument? If yes, then this is the conclusion:
"Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy. "
_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

Kudos [?]: 2386 [0], given: 178

Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1605

Kudos [?]: 1009 [0], given: 81

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2017, 01:21
The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year’s budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

Type - weaken

The conclusion is that the government has “practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget." The basis for that claim is that Pell grants improve access to higher education, which allows lower-income students to improve their economic standing. The main assumption this argument relies on is that Pell grants are the only means available to lower-income students who wish to access higher education. The correct answer will weaken the conclusion by contradicting this assumption.
A) Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget. -CORRECT. If total spending on access to higher education will increase, then the federal government has addressed the issue that the author cites, albeit through means other than Pell grants.
B) The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants. - Whether candidates for Pell grants are aware of their eligibility is irrelevant to the claim that the government has practiced bad public policy.
C) Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities. - This choice may sound like a counterargument (that Congress is somehow practicing good public policy by authorizing a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities) to the argument presented (that the government is practicing bad public policy by failing to safeguard Pell grants). However, we have no evidence that after-school programs in urban communities help lowincome students afford higher education, so this does not weaken the argument presented by the author.
D) On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university. -The dollar amount of the Pell grants is irrelevant. To this argument, it matters only that they provide some help at all.
E) Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget. - Increased spending on education as a percentage of the total budget does not necessarily imply that low-income students will have better access to higher education. In fact, it does not even imply that education spending (in dollars) will increase.

Answer A
_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Kudos [?]: 1009 [0], given: 81

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 690

Kudos [?]: 230 [0], given: 855

Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Apr 2017, 23:09
Conclusion: - "government has “practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget."
The logic of the argument is:
1. Current admin has weakened Pell grants.
2. Pell grants provide access to higher education for disadvantaged.
3. Access to higher education is necessary to elevate to middle class
4. Elevation is necessary to make democracy stable.
5. Therefore, admin has practiced bad policy.

Choice A weakens it badly. Choice A gives us an alternate route to 3. Once we accept A as true, it no longer matters whether the Pell grants have decreased. The only problem with reducing Pell grants (decreased access to higher education) is no longer a problem, since access to higher education will be better funded, not more poorly funded. They have actually given more overall money to programs helping the poor, then have they really practiced bad policy by cutting Pell grants? No, because they are still helping the poor go to college. This really weakens the idea that the administration is doing something bad.

(B) Whether candidates for Pell grants are aware of their eligibility is irrelevant to the claim that the government has practiced bad public policy.

Hence A is best choice here.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Kudos [?]: 230 [0], given: 855

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 4

GPA: 3
Reviews Badge
Re: The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Sep 2017, 06:49
Strange, as it may sound, the conclusion of the argument is that government has practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget.

Before anyone refute this, I would like to add that this explanation and question is from Manhattan. And I myself came here looking for explanation. Since we all are confused, I will try to put my understanding, which I gathered from various places, as follows-

Conclusion : The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year’s budget.

Reasons why author think that whatever the government has done is BAD-
    1) Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances,
    thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class.

    2) Without that access ( Access of higher education) , the gap between the rich and poor in this country will
    continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

So option A states that the government have an alternative to pell program. MAYBE they would have found another program more effective etc. But presence of another alternative, in which the government is increasing the investment- proves that the what government did was not a BAD policy PRACTICE but a kind of well THOUGHT out POLICY.

Now ASSUME that if the last line was the conclusion - Without that access ( Access of higher education) , the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

All the author is saying is that the ACCESS TO EDUCATION is necessary to close the GAP.
    A) Do you think that by pointing out the necessity of pell, the author was trying to conclude a general idea of necessity to education? Had the author
    mentioned that increasing pell's investment is necessary to reduce the GAP, then it would have made better sense.

    B) Moreover, to weaken this particular conclusion we need an answer which shows that THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO REDUCE THE GAP. No option
    addresses this particular conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 4

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Posts: 11

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

Re: The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2017, 21:53
The argument's conclusion is: Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.
Option A shows that if, other than pell grants, govt is going to increase total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students then also the gap will not continue to widen between rich and poor.

So, option A is a serious weakener in this case. :)

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

Re: The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad   [#permalink] 11 Sep 2017, 21:53

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 51 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.