Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products.
May 1501:00 PM IST
-11:00 AM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.
May 1810:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 25 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.- May 19
12:00 PM PDT
-01:00 PM PDT
Scoring 329 on the GRE is not always about using more books, more courses, or a longer study plan. In this episode of GRE Success Talks, Ashutosh shares his GRE preparation strategy, study plan, and test-day experience, explaining how he kept his prep.... - Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
29 Sep 2024, 13:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
In 1946, US President Harry Truman signed into law the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, which established what is now called the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). The NSLP reimburses states for providing free and low-cost meals to qualifying students. In its first year, about 7 million children participated, rising to over 30 million by 2016. Schools may only serve free or reduced-price lunches to children who qualify, based on household income and family size. Currently, children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level qualify for free lunch, while those from families with incomes between 130 and 185 percent qualify for reduced-price lunch.
Unfortunately, the eligibility guidelines leave many children in a difficult situation: their parents earn more than 130 percent of the federal poverty level but not enough to consistently afford full or reduced-price meals. This gap often results in school lunch debt, which can have acute psychological impacts on children, including stigma and bullying from peers. For many children, these school meals are often their only reliable source of daily nutrition.
Eight states have established universal school meal programs for schools participating in the NSLP. Other states have eliminated the reduced-price lunch category, making meals free for any student from a family with an income below 185 percent of the federal poverty level. However, most states have not adopted such expanded programs, leaving millions of children without consistent access to school meals.
The passage suggests that school lunch debt arises from gaps in the eligibility criteria for free or reduced-price meals. Which of the following must be true in order for this explanation to be valid?
A. Some families who qualify for reduced-price meals do not apply for the program due to the stigma associated with receiving assistance.
B. A substantial proportion of students who incur school-lunch debt are ineligible for free or reduced-price meals and cannot afford the full price.
C. Schools rarely provide alternative assistance to students who cannot pay for their meals.
D. The federal poverty level does not account for the differences in cost of living across various regions where students experience food insecurity.
E. Eliminating the reduced-price lunch category would completely solve the problem of school lunch debt.
Unfortunately, the eligibility guidelines leave many children in a difficult situation: their parents earn more than 130 percent of the federal poverty level but not enough to consistently afford full or reduced-price meals. This gap often results in school lunch debt, which can have acute psychological impacts on children, including stigma and bullying from peers. For many children, these school meals are often their only reliable source of daily nutrition.
Eight states have established universal school meal programs for schools participating in the NSLP. Other states have eliminated the reduced-price lunch category, making meals free for any student from a family with an income below 185 percent of the federal poverty level. However, most states have not adopted such expanded programs, leaving millions of children without consistent access to school meals.
The passage suggests that school lunch debt arises from gaps in the eligibility criteria for free or reduced-price meals. Which of the following must be true in order for this explanation to be valid?
A. Some families who qualify for reduced-price meals do not apply for the program due to the stigma associated with receiving assistance.
B. A substantial proportion of students who incur school-lunch debt are ineligible for free or reduced-price meals and cannot afford the full price.
C. Schools rarely provide alternative assistance to students who cannot pay for their meals.
D. The federal poverty level does not account for the differences in cost of living across various regions where students experience food insecurity.
E. Eliminating the reduced-price lunch category would completely solve the problem of school lunch debt.
29 Sep 2024, 13:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
In 1946, US President Harry Truman signed into law the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, which established what is now called the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). The NSLP reimburses states for providing free and low-cost meals to qualifying students. In its first year, about 7 million children participated, rising to over 30 million by 2016. Schools may only serve free or reduced-price lunches to children who qualify, based on household income and family size. Currently, children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level qualify for free lunch, while those from families with incomes between 130 and 185 percent qualify for reduced-price lunch.
Unfortunately, the eligibility guidelines leave many children in a difficult situation: their parents earn more than 130 percent of the federal poverty level but not enough to consistently afford full or reduced-price meals. This gap often results in school lunch debt, which can have acute psychological impacts on children, including stigma and bullying from peers. For many children, these school meals are often their only reliable source of daily nutrition.
Eight states have established universal school meal programs for schools participating in the NSLP. Other states have eliminated the reduced-price lunch category, making meals free for any student from a family with an income below 185 percent of the federal poverty level. However, most states have not adopted such expanded programs, leaving millions of children without consistent access to school meals.
The passage suggests that school lunch debt arises from gaps in the eligibility criteria for free or reduced-price meals. Which of the following must be true in order for this explanation to be valid?
A. Some families who qualify for reduced-price meals do not apply for the program due to the stigma associated with receiving assistance.
B. A substantial proportion of students who incur school-lunch debt are ineligible for free or reduced-price meals and cannot afford the full price.
C. Schools rarely provide alternative assistance to students who cannot pay for their meals.
D. The federal poverty level does not account for the differences in cost of living across various regions where students experience food insecurity.
E. Eliminating the reduced-price lunch category would completely solve the problem of school lunch debt.
A. Incorrect. This choice discusses stigma, but the passage focuses on financial gaps in eligibility rather than families’ willingness to apply. Even if some families avoid applying due to stigma, the passage’s claim about school lunch debt stems from the affordability gap.
[color=#339966;]B. Correct Answer.[/color] For the passage’s argument to hold, there must be a significant group of students who do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals but still cannot afford regular school lunches. This is the gap that creates the issue of school lunch debt.
C. Incorrect. The passage does not claim that schools lack alternative assistance; the focus is on the gaps in the National School Lunch Program’s eligibility criteria, not on the absence of other forms of help.
D. Incorrect. While the federal poverty level may not reflect regional cost-of-living differences, this is not directly linked to the existence of school lunch debt as described in the passage. The issue is about families who do not meet the poverty guidelines but still cannot afford meals.
E. Incorrect. The passage suggests that eliminating the reduced-price lunch category is one solution some states have adopted, but it does not claim this would fully solve the problem. Other factors, such as household income levels above 185% of the poverty line, may still leave some families struggling to afford meals.
Answer: B
In 1946, US President Harry Truman signed into law the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, which established what is now called the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). The NSLP reimburses states for providing free and low-cost meals to qualifying students. In its first year, about 7 million children participated, rising to over 30 million by 2016. Schools may only serve free or reduced-price lunches to children who qualify, based on household income and family size. Currently, children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level qualify for free lunch, while those from families with incomes between 130 and 185 percent qualify for reduced-price lunch.
Unfortunately, the eligibility guidelines leave many children in a difficult situation: their parents earn more than 130 percent of the federal poverty level but not enough to consistently afford full or reduced-price meals. This gap often results in school lunch debt, which can have acute psychological impacts on children, including stigma and bullying from peers. For many children, these school meals are often their only reliable source of daily nutrition.
Eight states have established universal school meal programs for schools participating in the NSLP. Other states have eliminated the reduced-price lunch category, making meals free for any student from a family with an income below 185 percent of the federal poverty level. However, most states have not adopted such expanded programs, leaving millions of children without consistent access to school meals.
The passage suggests that school lunch debt arises from gaps in the eligibility criteria for free or reduced-price meals. Which of the following must be true in order for this explanation to be valid?
A. Some families who qualify for reduced-price meals do not apply for the program due to the stigma associated with receiving assistance.
B. A substantial proportion of students who incur school-lunch debt are ineligible for free or reduced-price meals and cannot afford the full price.
C. Schools rarely provide alternative assistance to students who cannot pay for their meals.
D. The federal poverty level does not account for the differences in cost of living across various regions where students experience food insecurity.
E. Eliminating the reduced-price lunch category would completely solve the problem of school lunch debt.
A. Incorrect. This choice discusses stigma, but the passage focuses on financial gaps in eligibility rather than families’ willingness to apply. Even if some families avoid applying due to stigma, the passage’s claim about school lunch debt stems from the affordability gap.
[color=#339966;]B. Correct Answer.[/color] For the passage’s argument to hold, there must be a significant group of students who do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals but still cannot afford regular school lunches. This is the gap that creates the issue of school lunch debt.
C. Incorrect. The passage does not claim that schools lack alternative assistance; the focus is on the gaps in the National School Lunch Program’s eligibility criteria, not on the absence of other forms of help.
D. Incorrect. While the federal poverty level may not reflect regional cost-of-living differences, this is not directly linked to the existence of school lunch debt as described in the passage. The issue is about families who do not meet the poverty guidelines but still cannot afford meals.
E. Incorrect. The passage suggests that eliminating the reduced-price lunch category is one solution some states have adopted, but it does not claim this would fully solve the problem. Other factors, such as household income levels above 185% of the poverty line, may still leave some families struggling to afford meals.
Answer: B
27 Apr 2025, 04:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
"Significant" # of students who accumulate school debt vs "all" students who accumulate school debt was the reason I eliminated this Option.
Per the passage significant # of students of the school, accumulated school debt due to ineligibility - no other reason is given for debt accumulation i.e., "all" students who accumulated debt was due to this reason of ineligibility.
Is this a too harsh / extreme reason to eliminate?
Compared to this, federal poverty line not accounting for local cost levels seemed to make sense as this could explain why the ineligible students crossed the threshold but at the same time were unable to pay for the local meals due to higher cost of living vs federal guidelines.
Pls correct my understanding if this assumption is too far fetched
Per the passage significant # of students of the school, accumulated school debt due to ineligibility - no other reason is given for debt accumulation i.e., "all" students who accumulated debt was due to this reason of ineligibility.
Is this a too harsh / extreme reason to eliminate?
Compared to this, federal poverty line not accounting for local cost levels seemed to make sense as this could explain why the ineligible students crossed the threshold but at the same time were unable to pay for the local meals due to higher cost of living vs federal guidelines.
Pls correct my understanding if this assumption is too far fetched
