Parent: Pushing very young children into rigorous study in an effort

Question

Parent: Pushing very young children into rigorous study in an effort to make our nation more competitive does more harm than good. Curricula for these young students must address their special developmental needs, and while rigorous work in secondary school makes sense, the same approach in the early years of primary school produces only short-term gains and may cause young children to burn out on schoolwork. Using very young students as pawns in the race to make the nation economically competitive is unfair and may ultimately work against us.

Which one of the following can be inferred from the parent’s statements?

(A) For our nation to be competitive, our secondary school curriculum must include more rigorous study than it now does.
(B) The developmental needs of secondary school students are not now being addressed in our high schools.
(C) Our country can be competitive only if the developmental needs of all our students can be met.
(D) A curriculum of rigorous study does not adequately address the developmental needs of primary school students.
(E) Unless our nation encourages more rigorous study in the early years of primary school, we cannot be economically competitive.

Skywalker18 · Accepted Answer

Parent: Pushing very young children into rigorous study in an effort to make our nation more competitive does more harm than good. Curricula for these young students must address their special developmental needs, and while rigorous work in secondary school makes sense, the same approach in the early years of primary school produces only short-term gains and may cause young children to burn out on schoolwork. Using very young students as pawns in the race to make the nation economically competitive is unfair and may ultimately work against us.

Type-inference

(A) For our nation to be competitive, our secondary school curriculum must include more rigorous study than it now does. - Out of scope- the argument does not state anything about altering secondary school curriculum
(B) The developmental needs of secondary school students are not now being addressed in our high schools. - Out of scope- the argument states the developmental need of primary school children
(C) Our country can be competitive only if the developmental needs of all our students can be met. - Out of scope- too far a jump as the argument states the developmental need of primary school children
(D) A curriculum of rigorous study does not adequately address the developmental needs of primary school students.- Correct 
 Curricula for these young students must address their special developmental needs , and while rigorous work in secondary school makes sense,  the same approach in the early years of primary school produces only short-term gains and may cause young children to burn out on schoolwork.  
(E) Unless our nation encourages more rigorous study in the early years of primary school, we cannot be economically competitive.- incorrect; the argument does not claim that rigorous study in the early years of primary school is a necessary condition

Answer D

KanishkM · Answer

So Inline is my reasoning.

The whole argument is on a parent's perspective.

High school students do rigorous work in secondary school this makes sense
But Young children, No. They should not be overloaded with homework.
If a country wants to improve it should not overload the young school children with tremendous workload.

(A) For our nation to be competitive, our secondary school curriculum must include more rigorous study than it now does.
It went ahead of the scope.

(B) The developmental needs of secondary school students are not now being addressed in our high schools.
They were not even the main players of this argument.

(C) Our country can be competitive only if the developmental needs of all our students can be met.
Nobody said this anywhere.

(D) A curriculum of rigorous study does not adequately address the developmental needs of primary school students.
Correct. It agrees with the tone of the author.

(E) Unless our nation encourages more rigorous study in the early years of primary school, we cannot be economically competitive.
Again this is too broad for this argument.

Paras96 · Answer

(A) For our nation to be competitive, our secondary school curriculum must include more rigorous study than it now does.
 - This statement is not directly supported by the parent's argument. The parent talks about the negative consequences of rigorous study for very young children but doesn't make a specific claim about the need for more rigorous study in secondary school.

(B) The developmental needs of secondary school students are not now being addressed in our high schools.
 - The parent's argument doesn't focus on the developmental needs of secondary school students. Instead, it emphasizes the developmental needs of very young children in primary school. This inference goes beyond the scope of the parent's statements.

(C) Our country can be competitive only if the developmental needs of all our students can be met.
 - While the parent argues against pushing very young children into rigorous study, they don't make a broad statement about meeting the developmental needs of all students being a prerequisite for the country's competitiveness. This inference is too general and not directly supported by the parent's statements.

(D) A curriculum of rigorous study does not adequately address the developmental needs of primary school students.
 - This inference aligns with the parent's argument. The parent suggests that a rigorous curriculum in the early years of primary school may not be suitable for the developmental needs of young children, implying that it does not adequately address those needs.

(E) Unless our nation encourages more rigorous study in the early years of primary school, we cannot be economically competitive.
 - The parent's argument does not make a direct connection between the level of rigor in early primary school and the nation's economic competitiveness. The argument primarily focuses on the potential harm to young children from rigorous study and the need to address their developmental needs.

In summary, option (D) is the valid inference because it directly aligns with the parent's argument that a rigorous curriculum may not adequately address the developmental needs of primary school students.

Parent: Pushing very young children into rigorous study in an effort

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

Parent: Pushing very young children into rigorous study in an effort

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