First, let’s take a look at the structure of the passage:

- The number of teaching applicants in Newtown decreased 5.7% from 1985-1993 and 5.9% from 1985-1994. This means that teaching applications declined a little over .2% from 1993-1994.
- Throughout the late 1990s, the student population grew and more teachers resigned.
- With more students, more teacher resignations, and fewer teaching applicants we would EXPECT a teacher shortage towards the end of the decade.
- BUT, Newtown DID NOT face a teacher shortage in the late 1990s.

The question asks that we identify an answer choice that explains this apparent discrepancy. In other words, how can we have more students, more teacher resignations, and fewer teaching applicants, but at the same time not face a teacher shortage?


The fact that many of Newtown’s public school students do not graduate from high school does not help explain why Newtown does not face a teacher shortage in the late 1990s. Even if the graduation rate were in some way connected to the number of teachers needed, (A) still provides no information on how the number of students who graduate has or has not changed over the course of the decade. Eliminate (A).


(B) explains why Newtown’s student population continued to grow in the late 1990s, but the question asks us to explain the discrepancy. Because (B) does not explain why Newtown did not face a teacher shortage in that time period, we can eliminate it.


The passage has already indicated that the number of students has grown in the 1990s. Thus, if the Newtown school board were to increase the ratio of students to teachers, it could keep constant or decrease the number of teachers. But (C) indicates that the school board will not increase this ratio. This means that the school board will have to hire more teachers than ever to keep pace with the growing student population. Therefore, rather than explain why Newtown does not face a teacher shortage, (C) gives us all the more reason to find the lack of a teacher shortage perplexing. Eliminate (C).


If teachers’ colleges in the area began to produce fewer graduates, we would have all the more reason to expect a teacher shortage. Fewer graduates means a smaller pool of teachers to hire from. If anything, (D), like (C), gives us more reason to expect a teacher shortage. So, we can eliminate (D).


We are trying to explain how, despite a decrease in applications, an increase in resignations, and an increase in students, Newtown did not face a teacher shortage in the late 1990s. If, in 1993, Newtown began with 40% more applications than positions available, then it had a significant surplus of teaching applicants. That means Newtown could afford a slight decrease in the number of applications and still be able to hire enough teachers to cover a growing student population and increasing number of resignations. Therefore, (E) explains the apparent discrepancy and is the best choice.

(E) is correct.

I hope that helps!
_________________

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 for me too. The answer should be a choice, which should convey a sense that there are sufficient teachers. The argument states that the number of teaching applicants are going down. Only E states that there were more applicants than positions. Therefore there are no teaching shortages.

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.

This statement says that the teachers' applications were good enough for early 90's But we cannot say that the same would be true for late 90's . So this also cannot be the correct answere choice.

If someone has a better explanation, which i am sure someone would, then explain the answere choice to this question.
Javed.

Cheers!

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.

Teacher to student ratio is more of a efficiency in teaching and higher teacher to student ratio means teacher can concentrate more on the students he/she has. If there are 10 teachers and 1000 students each T has to concentrate on 100 S. If 10 T and 100 S, each T has to concentrate on 10 S. We can't say that there is shortage or no shortage based on the T/S.

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

The number of applications for teaching positions in Newtown’s public schools was 5.7 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 does not face a shortage in the late 1990’s.


ACCORDING TO ARGUMENT:
NUMBER OF APPLICATION HAS DROPPED IN 1993 AND 1994...compared to number of application of year 1985
now it also says school doesnt face shortage..in late 1990
this is possible only either number of application was much higher than availability of teaching position in 1985
or student to teacher ratio would have increased.


now option C
(C) The Newtown school board does not contemplate increasing the ratio of students to teachers in the 1990’s.==>
THIS SHOWS THAT THEY HAVE NOT INCREASED THE RATIO THING...so it is not explainig the paradox...
if it were like this
The Newtown school board contemplate increasing the ratio of students to teachers in the 1990’s===>then it would have been the right answer

(E) In 1993 Newtown’s public schools received 40 percent more applications for teaching positions than there were positions available.===>this one clearly answering the paradox....number of available positions was less...so small decrease in number of application ...doesnt affect ....hence this one is correct

hope it helps FOZZY
_________________

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 .
_________________

The number of applications for teaching positions in Newtown’s public schools was 5.7 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. [b]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. Out of scope

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.Out of scope

C. The Newtown school board does not contemplate increasing the ratio of students to teachers in the 1990’s.Out of scope

D. Teachers’ colleges in and near Newtown produced fewer graduates in 1994 than in 1993.Out of scope

E. In 1993 Newtown’s public schools received 40 percent more applications for teaching positions than there were positions available.
(Even though the percentage is lower in comparision with that of another year, the actual value is above the requirement. Therefore no shortage.)

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
_________________

Question is asking that when there is a dip in % of applications for teaching job and continuous increase in no. of students enrolled together with a trend where many teachers have resigned, how come the school did not feel the shortage of teacher.
EXPLANATION: The only way it is possible is that in absolute number terms if they are getting applications more than the vacancies they have at any point of the time, they will not feel the shortage. The same things is explained in choice E. Analogy: if John's income is decreasing and his expenses are increasing, there is still a possibility that he is not feeling the heat of this if it is proved that decreased income is still higher than the increased expenses.
_________________

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.
_________________

GMATNinja: Can you please help me with the options C & E ? I'm really struggling with the correct logic.

@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.

-> 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.

-> Again, the grammar is off from tenses' perspective.


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.
_________________

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.


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.


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

VeritasKarishma GMATNinjaTwo GMATNinja -

Hi Experts - would you agree with E -- it only explains one out of two aspects of the paradox

Option E only explains why there is no teacher shortage even though the number of applications have gone down (because you had 40 % more applications)

Option E DOES NOT explain why there is no teacher shortage even though resignations have gone up ?

Q2) Does option E tell us anything about if the 40 % more applications also compensated for the increased resignations. My understand is YOU CANNOT assume that when assessing option E.

Number of applications have decreased in 93-94. Number of resignations have increased and student strength has increased too.

Still there is no teacher shortage.

How is this possible?
One explanation could be that anyway the number of applications obtained is so large that a slight decrease and some resignations does not cause teacher shortage.

This is what option (E) says. Since there are 40% more applications than positions, a decrease in other things does not cause shortage.

It takes care of all aspects of the paradox.
_________________