It’s time we stopped searching for new statistics to suggest that we are not spending enough on mid-day meal schemes in our area. In fact, mid-day meal spending has increased 30 percent overall during the last decade.
Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?
Argument says that we have to stop criticize the mid-day meal scheme because meal spending has increased 30%. A. When adjusted for inflation, our per-pupil expenditure on mid-day meals this year is less than what it was ten years ago.
Correct. Rason mentioned above is increase in spending. However number of pupils and inflation increase more than 30%. So overall spending per pupil is decreased. Still we have reason to criticise the mid-day meal scheme. B. Despite increased spending on mid-day meals, enrollment in our schools has declined to about 4 percent during the last ten years.
out of scope. No realation between mid-day meal scheme and enrollment is mentioned in argument. C. Our spending on kerosene oil increased more than it was ten years ago.
Out of scope.D. Few other neighboring areas spend more on mid-day meals than we do.
Out of scope. Argument says only about one area. E. The nutrition levels in our students have been declining steadily since 2004 and the last decade produced no reversal in this trend.
This may be the reason to criticize the mid day meal scheme. but here A is better.IMO A