Parochial education serves the dual functions of education and religious instruction, and church leaders are justifiably concerned to impart important religious values regarding relationships between the sexes. Thus, when the administrators of a parochial school system segregate boys and girls in separate institutions,
they believe they are helping to keep the children pure by removing them from a source of temptation. If the administrators realized, however, that children would be more likely to develop the very attitudes they seek to engender in the company of the opposite sex, they would ________.
Basically we're saying the reason they segregate boys from girls is because they want to keep them 'pure'. However the author of the statement argues that children are more likely to develop the attitudes that administrators want (purity I suppose) if they are within the company of the opposite sex. So the segregation runs counter to the intended goal.
(A) put an end to all parochial education
-> No the argument is about segregation within parochial education being counter-productive to its intended goal, not on parochial education itself.
(B) no longer insist upon separate schools for boys and girls
->Yes. Why continue segregating if the reason we did so is better achieved by having boys and girls in the same school?
(C) abolish all racial discrimination in the religious schools
-> Out of scope. The topic of neither race or discrimination is mentioned in the statement.
(D) stop teaching foolish religious tripe, and concentrate instead on secular educational programs
-> Like A this is flawed because the argument is about segregation within these systems, not about the systems validity themselves.
(E) reinforce their policies of isolating the sexes in separate programs
-> No. This would be the answer if segregation was leading to the attitudes they wanted to distill, but the author is saying segregation does the opposite.