Hi,

I'll try to explain. Lets start with understanding the argument step by step

Let The number of applications for teaching positions in Newtown’s public schools be N.

N was 5.7(avg to 5%) percent lower in 1993 than in 1985 and
5.9 percent lower in 1994 than in 1985.

Despite a steadily growing student population and an increasing number of teacher resignations,
however, Newtown did not face a teacher shortage in the late 1990’s.

let us take the nearby integer values of both 5.7 and 5.9 as 6.
let the % of N in 1985 be 10

explanation of the apparent discrepancy above?

Even though the percentage 6% lower in comparison with that of another year 1985
the actual value is above the requirement. Therefore no shortage.

let us say
we have 100 vacancies and we got 140 applications in 1993
whereas we may have got 150 applications in 1985.

this number of applications 140(1993) is 6% lower than 150(1985)

Thus,
even though we got less no of application in 1990's we never faced any shortage since we always had excess no matter what.

Online option E correlates with our pre-line thinking which says

"E. In 1993 Newtown’s public schools received 40 percent more applications for teaching positions than there were positions available."

I hope this helps

E says that in 1993 Newtown’s public schools received 40 percent more applications.....so in 1984 it would have been more than that...and it 1994 the decrease is not much from 1993 fig's as relative decrease of 5.9 and 5.7 is given.

So as the application for the post of teaches is always more than the posts available thus Newtown dose not face a teacher shortage in the late 1990’s.

Picked E for the same reasons.
Let the numof teachers in 1985 be 100.
In 1993, if 5 teachers resigned , 7 applicants would have applied for the job. The number of applicants in 1993 is 5.7 % less than the number of applicants in 1985. The number of students have increased, number of resignation has increased , but the shortage can be filled because the nos of applicants is greater than the nos of posts available.

I picked C for this question can someone explain! Thanks.

The number of applications for teaching positions 5.7 percent lower in 1993 than in 1985
The number of applications for teaching positions 5.9 percent lower in 1994 than in 1985

So the number of applications was decreasing. [ NOTE: that it is not mentioned about available position ] { it is possible that available positions were very very less }

The student population was growing.

The number of teacher resignations were increasing.[ Note: It is not mentioned about how much percent ?]

Newtown did not face a teacher shortage in the late 1990’s.

So any possible Explanation that there were fewer available position then number of application for that job explain why there was not shortage.


E) In 1993 Newtown’s public schools received 40 percent more applications for teaching positions than there were positions available==> Perfect. Available positions were already very low so even fewer number of application doesn't matter.


No other options explain this discrepancy .
_________________

Let's try , though I am no expert and initially chose C over E



Let the scenario be something like this

No of Teachers in 1985 = 1000 ; No of Teachers resigned between 1985-1993 =57
No of Teachers in 1993 = 943 ; No of Teachers resigned between 19931994 =2
No of Teachers in 1994 = 941



How can this be possible ; teachers are resigning yet shortage of teachers take place , that to with additional students ?

Definitely through new recruitment. Now lets jump to our options and find the correct answer.

Which of the following, if true, would contribute most to an explanation of the apparent discrepancy above?

(A) Many of Newtown’s public school students do not graduate from high school. - Outright Irrelevent
(B) New housing developments planned for Newtown are (shared) for occupancy in 1987 and are expected to increase the number of elementary school students in Newtown’s public - Outright Irrelevent
(C) The Newtown school board does not contemplate increasing the ratio of students to teachers in the 1990’s.

This looks promising lets test -

Ratio of students to teachers = No of Students / No of Teachers

Let No of Students in 1993 be 10000 , No of Teachers be 1000 ; Ratio of students to teachers = 10
Let No of Students in 1994 be 11000 , No of Teachers be 1100; Ratio of students to teachers = 10 [ 100 additional Teacher required to maintain same ratio]
Let No of Students in 1994 be 13200 , No of Teachers be 1320 ; Ratio of students to teachers = 10 [220 additional Teacher required to maintain same ratio]
And so on.........

The concept is clear , there must be an equal percentage increase in both the Numerator ( Students ) and Teachers and Denominator ( Teachers ) , teachers to maintain the same ratio of students to Teacher.

This option just touches the concept of recruitment of additional staff without directly stating the same - Lets hold it !!

(D) Teachers’ colleges in and near Newtown produced lower graduates in 1994 than in 1993. Irrelevent

(E) In 1993 Newtown’s public schools received 40 percent more applications for teaching positions than there were positions available.

Lets bring back our data -

No of Teachers in 1993 = 943 ; No of Teachers resigned between 19931994 =2 ; 2.8 Teachers wished to join the teaching position.

Now comes the fun , the School authority has the following options -

1. Recruit only the number teachers resigned to replace those who have resigned
2. Keep a pool (Excess candidates foud eligible - for future requirement ) of candidates for the Post of teachers found eligibble for the post in near future
3. Recruit all those candidates found eligible ( To meet future requirements )

This options clearly refers to recruitment of teachers to meet those who resigned ( As well for future anticipated requirement)

Hence I would love to go with (E) , for the following reasons -

1. It clearly refers to Recruitment of staff
2. Considers additional ( Anticipated ) requirements.

Hence I prefer E over C
_________________

Hi fozzzy
I think C is an Opposite Answer because increasing the ratio of students to teachers is actually a solution to a teacher shortage. Thus if the school board doesn't contemplate such a scenario, a shortage is more likely to happen. As the stimulus states that there is no shortage so C is not correct.
_________________