Educator: Reducing class sizes in our school district would require

Question

Educator: Reducing class sizes in our school district would require hiring more teachers. However, there is already a shortage of qualified teachers in the region. Although students receive more individualized instruction when classes are smaller, education suffers when teachers are underqualified. Therefore, reducing class sizes in our district would probably not improve overall student achievement.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the educator’s argument?

(A) Class sizes in the school district should be reduced only if doing so would improve overall student achievement.
(B) At least some qualified teachers in the school district would be able to improve the overall achievement of students in their classes if class sizes were reduced.
(C) Students place a greater value on having qualified teachers than on having smaller classes.
(D) Hiring more teachers would not improve the achievement of any students in the school district if most or all of the teachers hired were underqualified.
(E) Qualified teachers could not be persuaded to relocate in significant numbers to the educator’s region to take teaching jobs.

Source: LSAT

mikemcgarry · Accepted Answer

Dear gmatexam439 , I'm happy to respond.

My friend, I assume you are familiar with the Negation Test , one of the best ways to identify assumptions. I will use that here. Since you ask about (D) vs. (E), I simply will discuss those two. Here's the prompt argument: Educator : Reducing class sizes in our school district would require hiring more teachers. However, there is already a shortage of qualified teachers in the region. Although students receive more individualized instruction when classes are smaller, education suffers when teachers are underqualified. Therefore, reducing class sizes in our district would probably not improve overall student achievement. With the negation test, we want to negate the candidate for assumptions and see what effect this negative statement has on the argument. If negating a statement devastates an argument, completely tears it down, then the positive version of that statement is the assumption. Here's (D) (D) Hiring more teachers would not improve the achievement of any students in the school district if most or all of the teachers hired were underqualified . I've highlighted the words that make me suspicious. I believe this is what the aforementioned explanation meant by " restrictive ." One possible negation of (D): Hiring more teachers would improve the achievement of exactly one student in the school district if most or all of the teachers hired were underqualified . So if one student clearly benefits and no one else besides this single student benefits, then that is certainly not particularly cheerful news. In general, the argument remains the same: the experience of one outlier students does not change the general predictions for what will happen to the vast majority of students. We can negate (D) and the negation doesn't invalidate the argument, so (D) is not an assumption. Once again, it's very important to understand the subtle semantics here. general : Hiring underqualified teachers would not improve the achievement of the students . restrictive : Hiring underqualified teachers would not improve the achievement of any students . The first is a general statement about what will happen to the majority of students—most will not improve, but perhaps a few odd exceptions to the norm will. That's a perfectly realistic statement. The second is much more stringent restriction, claiming that not one single student would improve. This latter statement smacks of extremism and dogmatism. Any argument that claims a 100% effect is particularly vulnerable to objection. Here's (E): (E) Qualified teachers could not be persuaded to relocate in significant numbers to the educator’s region to take teaching jobs. The negation of this is straightforward. (E) Qualified teachers can be persuaded to relocate in significant numbers to the educator’s region to take teaching jobs If this is true, it absolutely obliterates the argument. Education quality is not going to suffer at all, because scores and scores of qualified teachers will be flooding the region. There is no way to maintain the original argument if the negation of (E) is a fact. Negating choice (E) completely destroys the argument, so this is clearly an assumption. Does all this make sense? Mike

gmatexam439 · Answer

How can the OA be "E". I chose "D" because of the below understanding. Please provide the OE for the same. Awaiting your reply.

Educator: Reducing class sizes in our school district would require hiring more teachers. However, there is already a shortage of qualified teachers in the region. Although students receive more individualized instruction when classes are smaller, education suffers when teachers are underqualified. Therefore, reducing class sizes in our district would probably not improve overall student achievement.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the educator’s argument?

(A) Class sizes in the school district should be reduced only if doing so would improve overall student achievement. - This is just restating what is given in the conclusion. 
(B) At least some qualified teachers in the school district would be able to improve the overall achievement of students in their classes if class sizes were reduced. - This is a fact set 
(C) Students place a greater value on having qualified teachers than on having smaller classes. - Students don't put a greater value on having qualified teachers. 
(D) Hiring more teachers would not improve the achievement of any students in the school district if most or all of the teachers hired were underqualified. - This bridges the gap in the conclusion correctly. 
(E) Qualified teachers could not be persuaded to relocate in significant numbers to the educator’s region to take teaching jobs. - Irrelevant. The argument is about student achievement and teacher's qualification. This option captures only one point.

akela · Answer

gmatexam439 · Answer

The aforesaid explanation just says that option D is restrictive. We can't just say this and dismiss the answer choice.
The OE is a total waste. Also, the explanation seems as if the author knew that the answer is "E" and then he started pouring in the points to convince the reader that answer is E.
 GMATNinja   mikemcgarry  please kindly throw some light on this question.

Regards

sarathgopinath · Answer

The question stem states would probably not improve overall student achievement. 
Option stem D goes one step beyond and states would not improve for anyone. This need not be true. May be one student's performance increases and other person's decreases. Again, net effect or overall achievement remains the same.
E is a much better option because the question states that lack of qualified teachers in the region makes it impossible t implement the plan.

Mo2men · Answer

Dear  mikemcgarry

Can you please show why B is wrong? I do not know how to negate when using 'if sentence'

Thanks

gmatexam439 · Answer

Dear  mikemcgarry ,

Thank you for your quick reply, and thank you for always patiently explaining the details of a question. However, I have a doubt in the above explanation. Please correct me where am I going wrong:

My Understanding 
While using the negation technique, don't we just negate the main verb of the sentence ? In the aforesaid negation provided by you, we are actually changing the object of the sentence.

For example: If I say, " John can play with any of his cars ". The negation of this sentence would be " John can't play with any of his cars " rather than " John can't play with one of his cars ". We are just changing the meaning here.
Likewise, in our question at hand wouldn't correct negation be " Hiring more teachers would  not  improve the achievement of any number of students in the school district if most or all of the teachers hired were under-qualified ". Now, if we read this statement this is also killing the argument.

Please correct me where am I going wrong? I have been using the negation technique for some time now and have never come across a negation in which we are changing the object itself. We always have to focus on the main verb.

Regards

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear Mo2men , How are you, my friend? I'm happy to respond.

First of all, just a bit of formal logic. You would need this for the LSAT, though not typically for the GMAT. The logical statement If P, then Q is equivalent to (not P) OR (Q) . We negate an "or" statement by changing it to an "and" statement and changing the valence of each term. The negation would be (P) AND (not Q) . That would be the formal negation to the statement " If P, then Q ." That's hypertechnical. In practice, many " if . . .then " statements can be re-worded as "all" or "every" statements, which are easy to negate. Here's (B). At least some qualified teachers in the school district would be able to improve the overall achievement of students in their classes if class sizes were reduced. The opposite of " at least some " is " none ." Negation of (B) Not even one qualified teacher in the school district would be able to improve the overall achievement of students in her classes if class sizes were reduced . Yes, this would be consistent with the bleak picture painted by the argument. It certainly doesn't challenge the conclusion of the argument in any way. Rather than use the Negation Test, I would say a far better way to eliminate (B) would be to recognize its essential irrelevance. The central problem in the argument is having not enough qualified teachers. It's taken for granted that qualified teachers would do a good job, but there aren't enough of them. (B) kinda tells us what we already know and are taking for granted. Does this make sense? Dear gmatexam439 , I'm happy to respond.

My friend, negating the main verb is often the correct way to negate a statement, especially if it's a very simple sentence, but it's not correct in certain special cases. In particular, when there are quantity qualifiers (e.g. all, none, most, some, always, never, sometimes, everywhere, nowhere, some places, , etc.) then these have their own rules for negation. All do ==> opposite = some don't or at least one doesn't None do ==> opposite = some do or at least one does It always happens ==> opposite = Sometimes it doesn't happen It never happens ==> opposite = Sometimes it actually does happen You run into trouble if you simply negate the main verb. You would change " All do " to " All don't ," and that's not a true opposite. Every polygon is a triangle . = a false statement Just negating the main verb gives us Every polygon is not a triangle . = another false statement In formal logic, the true negation of a false statement should be a true statement. If we turn one false statement into an other false statement, we've done something wrong. The true opposite of the original would be Not every polygon is a triangle = a true statement Does all this make sense? Mike

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

Hello expert,
yes I know there is an issue with “any student” in D, but in E, I think it just repeats the premise “there is already a shortage of qualified teachers in the region”, and explain why “there is already a shortage”
Shed some light? Much thanks.

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

(E) does not necessarily explain why there is a shortage. After all, it could be that nobody has attempted to persuade qualified teachers to relocate to the region.

Rather, (E) is basically a specific case of the general assumption that nothing can be done to address the shortage.

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

Hi  MartyTargetTestPrep  sorry for a typo in my last post: *premise, but not precise. My doubt is, does a special case repeat the premise? And I think repeating premise can’t be a valid assumption.
Mind to clarify? Much thanks.

unraveled · Answer

This is one of those question that has keywords play most important roles. So, we have to choose our keywords delicately. I have highlighted the keywords in each choice and passage.
Example - 
In D it is 'any students' that restricts the scope or violates the conditions laid down in the passage. 
In the passage 'our district' is the keyword, but, i must mention that it was not as cristal clear that 'our district' can be keywords. However, only after reading E one can identify why it is so important.

A has other issue of making a claim that acts more of a inference than an assumption, though even then it is not true which we are not bothered about.
B suffers from irrelevancy issue. It touches upon a part that is not at all a basis for conclusion(last sentence of the passage).
C is again irrelevant and absurd.

Choosing E is more difficult than eliminating D between D and E. POE helps.

Answer E.

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

It doesn't repeat a premise.

The premise that supports the conclusion is that "there is already a shortage of qualified teachers in the region."

The assumption is a little different. The assumption is that the shortage CANNOT BE ADDRESSED through persuading qualified teachers to relocate to the region.

sid85528 · Answer

please explain why e without using negation

MartyMurray · Answer

Educator: Reducing class sizes in our school district would require hiring more teachers. However, there is already a shortage of qualified teachers in the region. Although students receive more individualized instruction when classes are smaller, education suffers when teachers are underqualified. Therefore, reducing class sizes in our district would probably not improve overall student achievement.

The educator has concluded the following:

reducing class sizes in our district would probably not improve overall student achievement

The support for the conclusion is the following:

Reducing class sizes in our school district would require hiring more teachers. However, there is already a shortage of qualified teachers in the region. Although students receive more individualized instruction when classes are smaller, education suffers when teachers are underqualified.

Considering the argument, we see that there is a gap in the reasoning.

The support is about a shortage of qualified teachers in the region. The conclusion is about reducing class sizes not improving student achievement. So, basically, the argument assumes that the fact that there is a shortage of qualified teachers in the regions means that reducing class sizes won't work.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the educator’s argument?

This is an Assumption question, and the correct answer will be a statement that must be true for the evidence to effectively support the conclusion.

(A) Class sizes in the school district should be reduced only if doing so would improve overall student achievement.

The argument is not about whether class sizes "should be reduced." It's about the effect of reducing class sizes IF they are reduced.

So, the argument does not assume anything about what determines whether class sizes should be reduced.

Eliminate.

(B) At least some qualified teachers in the school district would be able to improve the overall achievement of students in their classes if class sizes were reduced.

The conclusion is not that qualified teachers "would" improve achievement of students. It's more along the lines of that underqualified teachers "would probably not" improve achievement of students.

So, the argument does not require the assumption that qualified teachers would improve student achievement. After all the idea that teachers would improve student achievement is in a way going in the opposite direction of the argument.

Eliminate.

(C) Students place a greater value on having qualified teachers than on having smaller classes.

The argument is not about what students "place a value on." It's about the effect of reducing class sizes.

Regardless of what students value, reducing class sizes may not serve to improve student achievement. After all, what students value and what serves to improve student achievement, while related, are two different things.

In other words, even if students do not value qualified teachers over smaller class sizes, if underqualified teachers don't teach effectively, student achievement probably won't improve as a result of a reduction in class sizes achieved through hiring underqualified teachers.

So, the argument works regardless of whether this choice is true.

Eliminate.

(D) Hiring more teachers would not improve the achievement of any students in the school district if most or all of the teachers hired were underqualified.

This choice may appear to be an assumption on which the argument depends, but isn't actually. Here's why.

This choice isn't an assumption on which the argument depends because the conclusion of the argument is not that hiring more teachers would not cause "any" students' achievement to improve.

The point of the argument is that "overall" achievement would not improve. In other words, given what the argument says, it could be that some students' achievement could improve if more teachers were hired, the issue is that, since some significant proportion of the new teachers would be underqualified, the quality of the education provided "overall" would not improve.

So, sure, if a mix of qualified and underqualified teachers were hired for the purpose of reducing class sizes, some students' achievement may improve. At the same time, overall achievement, i.e., average achievement would not.

So, the argument works even if it's not true that not "any" students' achievement would improve.

Eliminate.

(E) Qualified teachers could not be persuaded to relocate in significant numbers to the educator’s region to take teaching jobs.

This choice is interesting.

The reasoning of the argument is basically that, since there is a shortage of qualified teachers "in the region," reducing class sizes won't help.

So, if this choice isn't true, then the argument doesn't work. After all, if qualified teachers could be persuaded to relocate to the region, then the fact that, currently, there is a shortage of qualified teachers in the region doesn't effectively support the conclusion.

After all, in that case, even though there is a shortage of qualified teachers in the region, it isn't really likely that reducing class sizes won't help because, in that case, qualified teachers could be convinced to relocate to the region and teach the smaller classes.

So, for the argument to work, this choice must be true.

Keep.

Correct answer:  E

Educator: Reducing class sizes in our school district would require

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Educator: Reducing class sizes in our school district would require

Prep Toolkit

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