The government has recently implemented a new educational policy aimed

Question

The government has recently implemented a new educational policy aimed at improving the national literacy rate. This policy mandates an increase in the number of hours dedicated to reading instruction in schools. A study conducted a year after the policy's implementation shows a significant improvement in reading comprehension scores among students nationwide. Therefore, the policy's mandate to increase reading instruction hours is directly responsible for the observed improvement in literacy rates.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

(A) The study also found that students' interest in recreational reading outside of school hours has significantly increased over the past year.

(B) Many schools had already begun to increase the number of hours dedicated to reading instruction before the government's policy was officially implemented.

(C) Other countries that have not implemented a similar increase in reading instruction hours have also seen improvements in their national literacy rates.

(D) The improvement in reading comprehension scores is consistent across all demographic groups, including those previously identified as underperforming.

(E) Schools in regions with historically lower literacy rates received additional funding and resources as part of the government's new educational policy.

bikram5444 · Answer

Why option(c) is not the answer

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

Hmm, this isn't a very tight question. I wonder what the source is.

In general, we can weaken a causal argument by suggesting an alternative cause or by weakening the plausibility of the proposed cause. So in this case, we could say that something else caused the increase in reading scores, or we can give some reason that the government program is not likely to have done so.

B is going the first route. The trouble is that it just says "many schools" had increased hours. Is that 10% of schools? 60%? And we don't know if they had increased hours as much as the policy mandates, or even if they increased hours in anticipation of the policy. What it comes down to is that the policy could still easily have driven the increase. After all, we wouldn't say that an advertising campaign didn't work just because the brand was getting more popular *before* the campaign.

C is going the second route, by suggesting that some other unknown factor must be driving the increase. The GMAT has definitely used this type of answer before (see link below). However, this version isn't very tightly written. We don't know what % of countries saw an uptick. Surely, in any given year, some countries would go up and some would go down. We also don't know to what extent they took other measures to improve students' reading. Surely, more instructional hours is not the only possible solution.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-major-netw ... l#p1111083

So both B and C resemble the kind of answer that would weaken a CR argument, but neither is terribly effective.

Angad2553 · Answer

The government HAS RECENTLY implemented a new educational policy aimed at ....

study conducted a YEAR after the policy's implementation shows a SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT in reading comprehension...

So, it is assumed that significant improvement in reading comprehension is due to 
 RECENTLYintroduced educational policy,but Option B says that
Many schools HAD already begun to increase the number of hours dedicated to reading instruction before the government's policy was officially implemented.

So I chose B

Posted from my mobile device

socialsloth · Answer

DmitryFarber

What do you think about other options? especially (A) ?

1. Doesn't it undermine causation by indicating the students might have developed more interest in reading causing the indicated improvement? 
2. Also, though the options don't target this, can we focus on the fact that concern is about literacy rates, but improvemnet is only in reading comprehension scores?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

1. Answer choice A presents a common type of failed weakener. It shows something that could be an alternative cause, but could just as well be a RESULT of the improvement in reading ability. In other words, now we know that students did better on comprehension tests AND are more interested in reading outside of school. This could just be more proof that the policy was successful. Sure, it's possible that kids all got more excited about reading and THAT caused the increase, but why? We'd still be left wondering what the actual cause of the change was. Like C, this could hint at some other factor, but the fact is that we don't know whether any such factor exists, and in the absence of any other evidence, I'd be more likely to assume that the phenomenon described in A is a result of kids' improvement in ability.

So in general, watch out for answers that are consistent with both the original conclusion AND an alternative. They still leave us without any more guidance than before about which version is right.

2. You're right that there's a difference between improving test scores and improving literacy. (That's one of my main objections to the use of standardized testing to drive education decisions!) However, in this case the author is just concluding that the policy was responsible for the "observed improvement" in literacy. In other words, they're just saying that the policy caused the improvement that we saw, not that there was some broader improvement. So we can't really weaken the argument by addressing that change in wording.

socialsloth · Answer

Thank you!  DmitryFarber !

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

egmat  The correct answer is (E).

Here's a breakdown of why it most effectively undermines the argument.

​Analyzing the Argument
​Premise: A policy increased reading instruction hours.

​Evidence: Reading comprehension scores improved after the policy was implemented.
​
Conclusion: The increased reading hours are directly responsible for the improved scores.
​
The argument makes a causal claim: Event A (more hours) caused Event B (better scores). To weaken this, we need to show that something else could have caused Event B.

(E) Schools in regions with historically lower literacy rates received additional funding and resources as part of the government's new educational policy.

This is the strongest weakener. The argument isolates one element of the policy-the increased hours-and credits it for the success. This option introduces a confounding variable:

additional funding and resources. It suggests that the improvement may not be due to the extra time but rather to better books, more teachers, or other resources that the funding provided. This presents a direct and powerful alternative cause for the observed improvement, thus seriously undermining the conclusion that the increased hours were "directly responsible."

Whereas (B) Many schools had already begun to increase the number of hours dedicated to reading instruction before the government's policy was officially implemented.
​This choice doesn't weaken the core connection between more hours and better scores. It only confuses whether the government policy or a pre-existing trend deserves the credit. The fundamental causal link asserted by the argument remains intact.

Why (B) Fails to Weaken the Core Claim
​(B) Many schools had already begun to increase the number of hours dedicated to reading instruction before the government's policy was officially implemented.
​This statement only muddles the timeline of who gets the credit for increasing the hours. It suggests that a trend of increasing reading hours was already underway and the government policy just formalized it or jumped on the bandwagon.
​However, it does not challenge the idea that more reading hours lead to better scores. In fact, it might even strengthen that connection. It implies that schools independently recognized that more hours were a good idea and were already doing it. The cause (more hours) and the effect (better scores) still hold together.
​The argument is that X caused Y. Option (B) says, "Well, X was already happening before the official starting gun." This doesn't change the fact that X may have still caused Y.
​Why (E) Succeeds
​(E) Schools in regions with historically lower literacy rates received additional funding and resources as part of the government's new educational policy.
​This option provides a classic alternative cause. It breaks the core causal link by introducing another variable.
​The argument claims:
​More Hours (Cause) ➔ Better Scores (Effect)
​Option (E) suggests a different reality:
​More Funding & Resources (Alternative Cause) ➔ Better Scores (Effect)
​This directly undermines the conclusion that the increased hours were "directly responsible." The improvement could have been caused by the new books, smaller class sizes, or better-paid teachers that came with the extra funding, making the increased time irrelevant or only a minor factor.

The government has recently implemented a new educational policy aimed

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

The government has recently implemented a new educational policy aimed

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