Hello, Shameek. According to what I can find online, outside of GMAT Club, this does appear to be a GMAT Prep question. My guess is that it was an early question, perhaps even predating the turn of the millennium, which could explain the verb tense issue. It may have appeared in the earlier iteration of the GMAT Prep software, the one that corresponded to the longer test. One final note that may prove noteworthy: official questions tend to have more attempts, or "sessions," than other questions in this forum, although I can see how a misattribution could lead to the same. In any case, the question does not look familiar to me. I will address your other concerns below.
shameekv1989 wrote:
@AndrewN:- Wanted to bring this question to your attention.
First off, I doubt if this is a GMATPrep question as I don't think its a quality question by any means. Following is my reasoning and it would be great if you could provide your insights as well.
Quote:
(B) New housing developments planned for Newtown are slated for occupancy in 1997 and are expected to increase the number of elementary school students in Newtown's public schools by 12 percent.
-> The grammar looks odd. if you are talking about 1997 (i.e. past) then "are slated" and "are expected" does not go with the tenses.
Quote:
(C) The Newtown school board does not contemplate increasing the ratio of students to teachers in the 1990's.
-> Again, the grammar is off from tenses' perspective.
If the question predates 1997, then the verb conjugations are not a problem. The question could also be retrospective in nature, commenting on an earlier period, but I will admit that I find it odd to see
did not face a teacher shortage in the late 1990's in the passage and
are slated for occupancy in 1997 in answer choice (B) or, indeed,
does not contemplate in answer choice (C). Finally, there could have been a transcription error. In the BEATtheGMAT forum, for instance, this same question is listed with a passage that says,
Newtown does not face a teacher shortage... I cannot get to the bottom of this issue, since it appears to be lost to time.
shameekv1989 wrote:
Quote:
(E) In 1993 Newtown's public schools received 40 percent more applications for teaching positions than there were positions available.
How can one deduce that 40% more applications than the available teaching positions in one year can give us any information about the future years? So what if the town was able to fulfill its teachers demand in 1993. 1994 and late 1990s situations (which can not be 1994 by the way. It has to be 1996-1999) are mutually exclusive to 1993's situation.
For eg. in 1993 students pop increased, teachers resignation increased, demand (Teachers required) was adequately fulfilled by the supply (no. of applications)
in 1994, students pop further increased, more teachers resigned, demand increased, number of applications reduced, but here we can't deduce that
a) the applications from previous year (i.e. 1993) would still be considered,
b) that even if considered, the demand in 1994 can be fulfilled by the number of applications. may be demand for teacher shot up for some XYZ reason and number of applications is not sufficient to fulfill that demand.
Additionally, late 90s is not 1993 or 1994. Since the conclusion is about late 90s, we must have some answer choice that would provide some info to deduce about 1996-99 years.
Despite your concerns, choice (E) is the only one that remotely explains the apparent discrepancy, allowing us to appreciate that perhaps there was no teacher shortage, just as the passage outlines. Perhaps the flood of applications simply decreased while teaching positions were being filled. That would help reconcile the facts provided in the passage. I think the process of elimination is more useful on this question than anything else. If you can find a way to justify another answer, I would like to read your thoughts on the matter.
Thank you for bringing the question to my attention.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.