GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 21 Aug 2018, 08:56

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1247
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40

### Show Tags

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
_________________
Current Student
Joined: 05 Jul 2016
Posts: 46
Location: China
Concentration: Finance, Nonprofit
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q51 V31
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.4

### Show Tags

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.

Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1247
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40

### Show Tags

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. "
_________________
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2114
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)

### Show Tags

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.

_________________

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

Director
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 655
Location: United States
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)

### Show Tags

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.
3. Access to higher education is necessary to elevate to middle class
4. Elevation is necessary to make democracy stable.

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

Intern
Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 9
GPA: 3

### Show Tags

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
Intern
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Posts: 11

### Show Tags

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.
Manager
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 236
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.65
WE: Marketing (Education)

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2017, 09:28
vd wrote:
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.

(B) The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.

(C) Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.

(D) On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.

(E) Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.

Conclusion : No Pell Grant (cause) means the gap will be widened, ruining the democracy (effect).

Our job : to WEAKEN

According to Power Score, strategy to attack cause and effect argument are :
1. Bring alternate cause
2. Cause occurs, effect doesn't occur
3. Effect occurs, cause didn't occur.
4. Reverse causation
5. Statistical error

Answer A weaken this argument by strategy no. 2 : even though no Pell Grant, there is no effect because all of the other programs combined will bring a huge effect.

Wdyt?
_________________

There's an app for that - Steve Jobs.

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 48 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 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®.