Although the percentage of first graders in Almaria who were excellent

Question

Although the percentage of first graders in Almaria who were excellent readers varied little between 1995 and 2010, the percentage of first graders who had considerable difficulty reading their schoolbooks increased markedly during that period. This evidence strongly indicates that the average reading ability of first graders decreased between 1995 and 2010.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest additional support for the argument?

A. The number of hours devoted to reading activities in first-grade classrooms in Almaria did not vary significantly, on average, between 1995 and 2010. 
B. The percentage of first graders in Almaria who had difficulty solving arithmetic problems did not increase as much between 1995 and 2010 as did the percentage of first graders who had reading difficulties. 
C. The number of children in Almaria who were enrolled as first graders decreased steadily between 1995 and 2010. 
D. The average difficulty of the schoolbooks used in first-grade classrooms in Almaria decreased between 1995 and 2010. 
E. The average number of schoolbooks used in first-grade classrooms in Almaria increased between 1995 and 2010.

redskull1 · Answer

I like this question....

Gist =%people having difficulty reading books went up.Hence reading ability went down.

We have to strengthen the above(it occurred to me or probably might have occurred to most people, at this point itself, about the situation if books became easier or harder or whatever).

A - I like this option actually.For this option to hold we have to link reading practice and reading ability(an assumption that some might say is out of scope).Lets come back if others don't work.

B - Arithmetic and reading ability link = not at all cool.

C - The question talk about %.This option talks about number.Big red flag

D - The average difficulty has gone down.This option removes a pretty big weakener. Big Hold this one .

E - Number of school books going up or down....If at all I can use a word synonymous to the word "not cool", I would prefer the word HELL HOT......for this option.

Now A & D.I would go with A if D was not present.A is probably an assumption and D an actual strengthener.So D(if A was not present)

ChandlerBong · Answer

Hi KarishmaB , Can you please share your approach for this one? I boiled it down to A and D, but went with A. Thanks in advance.

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises: 
% of excellent readers stayed about the same from 1950 to 2010 (say 10%)
% of poor readers increased substantially (say from 10% to 30%)

Conclusion: the average reading ability of first graders decreased between 1995 and 2010.

We need additional support i.e. we need to strengthen the conclusion.

A. The number of hours devoted to reading activities in first-grade classrooms in Almaria did not vary significantly, on average, between 1995 and 2010.

Irrelevant. Number of hours does not translate to reading ability. It may not even be correlated with reading ability. Do we know that more hours means more ability? What if the teacher quality has decreased substantially from 1995 to 2010? 
Anyway, the reason for decreased ability is irrelevant. We have to support that reading ability is not as good as before, period. We have to simply compare reading ability of 1995 to 2010.

B. The percentage of first graders in Almaria who had difficulty solving arithmetic problems did not increase as much between 1995 and 2010 as did the percentage of first graders who had reading difficulties.

Skill in Math is irrelevant.

C. The number of children in Almaria who were enrolled as first graders decreased steadily between 1995 and 2010.

We are talking about percentages. Actual number of children doesn't matter.

D. The average difficulty of the schoolbooks used in first-grade classrooms in Almaria decreased between 1995 and 2010.

Ah! This further worsens the situation today. It further implies that children's reading ability has decreased. A greater % is facing problems and that too in easier material. Their capability certainly seems to have taken a hit. It is comparing reading ability in 1995 to that in 2010.

E. The average number of schoolbooks used in first-grade classrooms in Almaria increased between 1995 and 2010.

Number of schoolbooks is irrelevant.

Answer (D)

jayakalra · Answer

I think we look more closely at Option C - Number of students decreasing from 1995 to 2010 and students not understanding study material is strengther, for example - in 1995, lets say there were 2000 students, out of which 10% ~ 200 bad readers and in 2010, lets say out of 1000 students 50% are bad readers ~ 500 then overall on avg the reading ability decreased.

Please correct my understanding, thanks!!

Please correct my understanding, thanks!!

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Although the percentage of first graders in Almaria who were excellent

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

Although the percentage of first graders in Almaria who were excellent

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