The way I see it, there is a
paradox going on here. There are two contradicting parts:
First: It was assessed that total national expense on higher education would not increase. Tuition costs didn’t change.
Second: Contrary to assessments, total national expense on higher education rose significantly during the past two years.
EXCEPT is the key word. We NEED to find the answer choice that DOESN’T explain this paradox. We already know that increased tuition costs can’t explain this rose. We also know that any change explaining this rose must have happened during previous two years. With this in mind let’s analyze answer choices.
B. Even if tuition costs didn’t increase, other costs such as increased prices of dormitories and students’ services may indeed contribute to the total national expense on higher education. So out.
C. If interest rates increased last year (in the same timeframe), then this may indeed contribute to the part of expenditure paid by student loans. So out.
D. If more and more people began to take Master studies rather than restrict to Bachelor studies, then this may increase total expenditure. So out.
E. If many students began to pay higher tuition costs because they preferred universities to colleges, then this may increase total expenditure. So out.
A. If a growing number of students use their parent’s savings to pay for their higher education, will total national expense increase? Not always.
While other answer choices talk about
numbers, A talks about
percentages. A simply means that if before two years
30% of students used their parents’ savings, now this percentage may have increased, let’s say, to
45%. This change in percentages doesn’t necessarily mean that the number of students or cost of any service increased. These numbers may fall even if those percentages increase. Thus A hardly explains why total national expense increased.
Hence
A _________________