Two-Part Analysis - Non Math/Hard A city-run childcare center has introduced a new tuition policy for its after-school program. Under the new policy, most families must pay 180 euros per month, while families whose children are enrolled in the city’s special academic-support program pay 95 euros per month. Parent 1: "This policy is unfair. Many families already rely on the after-school program because private childcare is too expensive, and this new monthly fee places a real burden on households that are already stretching their budgets. I also do not think it is fair to charge one group much less simply because their children are in a particular program." Parent 2: "I understand why some families are upset, but the city probably adopted this fee structure because the program has to operate within a limited budget. They need enough revenue to keep the program running while still making it affordable for at least some families. The lower fee for children in the academic-support program also makes sense, since those students may have a stronger need for structured after-school supervision and assistance." For Parent 1’s objection , select the statement that best captures how Parent 1 builds the case against the fee policy. For Parent 2’s response , select the statement that best captures Parent 2’s reply to that criticism. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Correct selections Parent 1’s objection: • Focuses on the financial burden the policy places on ordinary families and also challenges the fairness of giving one group a special price. Why: Parent 1 develops the objection in two clear ways. First, Parent 1 emphasizes the financial burden the higher fee places on many families. Second, Parent 1 argues that it is unfair to charge one group less based on program status. Why the other options are not correct for Parent 1 • Uses an analogy to show that the pricing policy is discriminatory. Not correct because Parent 1 does not use an analogy. The objection is made directly through burden and fairness. • Defends the policy as a practical response to budget limits and also offers a reason why one group may reasonably pay less. Not correct because this describes Parent 2’s response, not Parent 1’s objection. • Agrees that the policy is unfair but argues that it should still remain in effect. Not correct because Parent 1 does not defend the policy in any way. Parent 1 rejects it. • Claims that families outside the favored group do not really need after-school care badly enough to justify a lower fee. Not correct because Parent 1 does not deny that other families have real needs. The point is that the fee is burdensome and the distinction is unfair. Parent 2’s response: • Defends the policy as a practical response to budget limits and also offers a reason why one group may reasonably pay less. Why: Parent 2 responds in two corresponding ways. First, Parent 2 justifies the policy by appealing to budget limits and the need to keep the program operating. Second, Parent 2 offers a reason why the lower fee for one group may be justified, namely that those children may have stronger or more urgent needs for structured after-school support. Why the other options are not correct for Parent 2 • Focuses on the financial burden the policy places on ordinary families and also challenges the fairness of giving one group a special price. Not correct because this describes Parent 1’s objection, not Parent 2’s response. • Uses an analogy to show that the pricing policy is discriminatory. Not correct because Parent 2 does not use an analogy and does not argue that the policy is discriminatory. • Agrees that the policy is unfair but argues that it should still remain in effect. Not correct because Parent 2 does not concede that the policy is unfair. Instead, Parent 2 argues that it is justified. • Claims that families outside the favored group do not really need after-school care badly enough to justify a lower fee. Not correct because Parent 2 does not deny that other families have legitimate needs. Parent 2 argues only that the favored group may have stronger reasons for receiving the lower fee. Takeaway In argument-role questions, the key is to identify the function of each speaker’s point with precision. Focus on what each person is doing in the exchange, such as criticizing, justifying, qualifying, or defending, and do not import stronger claims, concessions, or argumentative moves that the text does not actually make. What This Question Tests This is a non-math-related two-part analysis question testing argument structure, role identification, and careful reading of competing viewpoints. It tests whether you can distinguish between criticizing a policy’s impact, challenging the fairness of an exception, justifying a policy on practical grounds, and defending the exception without adding claims that neither speaker actually makes.

Two-Part Analysis - Non Math/Hard : Two-Part Analysis Archive

Two-Part Analysis - Non Math/Hard

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Parent 1’s objection	Parent 2’s response
		Focuses on the financial burden the policy places on ordinary families and also challenges the fairness of giving one group a special price.
		Uses an analogy to show that the pricing policy is discriminatory.
		Defends the policy as a practical response to budget limits and also offers a reason why one group may reasonably pay less.
		Agrees that the policy is unfair but argues that it should still remain in effect.
		Claims that families outside the favored group do not really need after-school care badly enough to justify a lower fee.